2019•Veterinární MedicínaOpen access

Cryopreservation and quality assessment of boar semen collected from bulk samples

Ruthaiporn Ratchamak, Thevin Vongpralub, Wuttigrai Boonkum, Vibuntita Chankitisakul

Open full text 11 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine sperm quality after cryopreservation of ejaculates collected as a bulk sample, which is routinely part of semen collection, and to compare this quality with the sperm-rich fraction in boars. Ejaculates were collected as sperm-rich fractions (SRF) and bulk samples (BE) using a gloved-hand technique. Fresh semen quality in terms of semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm motility and pH were conventionally evaluated. Then, semen was cryopreserved using the liquid nitrogen vapour method. The post-thaw sperm quality was evaluated by assessing sperm motility, live sperm with normal apical ridge and high mitochondrial energy status, lipid peroxidation was evaluated using CASA and fluorescent multiple staining and MDA levels were determined using a spectrophotometer, respectively. In terms of fresh semen quality, sperm motility in fresh semen did not differ significantly between the two groups. The treatment with the greater mean volume (BE; P < 0.05) had a lower mean sperm concentration (P < 0.05); meanwhile, the mean ejaculate pH collected as BE was more basic compared with SRF (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant post-thaw quality changes between sperm-rich fractions and bulk samples of semen. In conclusion, ejaculates can be collected as bulk samples without the need to classify fractions for boar semen cryopreservation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purpose of this study was to examine sperm quality after cryopreservation of ejaculates collected as a bulk sample, which is routinely part of semen collection, and to compare this quality with the sperm-rich fraction in boars. Ejaculates were collected as sperm-rich fractions (SRF) and bulk samples (BE) using a gloved-hand technique. Fresh semen quality in terms of semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm motility and pH were conventionally evaluated. Then, semen was cryopreserved using the liquid nitrogen vapour method. The post-thaw sperm quality was evaluated by assessing sperm motility, live sperm with normal apical ridge and high mitochondrial energy status, lipid peroxidation was evaluated using CASA and fluorescent multiple staining and MDA levels were determined using a spectrophotometer, respectively. In terms of fresh semen quality, sperm motility in fresh semen did not differ significantly between the two groups. The treatment with the greater mean volume (BE; P < 0.05) had a lower mean sperm concentration (P < 0.05); meanwhile, the mean ejaculate pH collected as BE was more basic compared with SRF (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant post-thaw quality changes between sperm-rich fractions and bulk samples of semen. In conclusion, ejaculates can be collected as bulk samples without the need to classify fractions for boar semen cryopreservation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine sperm quality after cryopreservation of ejaculates collected as a bulk sample, which is routinely part of semen collection, and to compare this quality with the sperm-rich fraction in boars. Ejaculates were collected as sperm-rich fractions (SRF) and bulk samples (BE) using a gloved-hand technique. Fresh semen quality in terms of semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm motility and pH were conventionally evaluated. Then, semen was cryopreserved using the liquid nitrogen vapour method. The post-thaw sperm quality was evaluated by assessing sperm motility, live sperm with normal apical ridge and high mitochondrial energy status, lipid peroxidation was evaluated using CASA and fluorescent multiple staining and MDA levels were determined using a spectrophotometer, respectively. In terms of fresh semen quality, sperm motility in fresh semen did not differ significantly between the two groups. The treatment with the greater mean volume (BE; P < 0.05) had a lower mean sperm concentration (P < 0.05); meanwhile, the mean ejaculate pH collected as BE was more basic compared with SRF (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant post-thaw quality changes between sperm-rich fractions and bulk samples of semen. In conclusion, ejaculates can be collected as bulk samples without the need to classify fractions for boar semen cryopreservation.

Key concepts: Sperm, Semen, Andrology, Cryopreservation, BOAR, Semen quality, Sperm motility, Sperm quality

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cryopreservation and quality assessment of boar semen collected from bulk samples — Research Paper | ScholarLens