RT info:eu-repo/semantics/article
T1 Specificity of the extender used for freezing ram sperm depends of the spermatozoa source (ejaculate, electroejaculate or epididymis)
A1 Álvarez García, Mercedes
A1 Tamayo Canul, Julio Renan
A1 Martínez Rodríguez, Carmen
A1 López Urueña, Elena
A1 Gomes Alves, Susana Cláudia
A1 Anel Rodríguez, Luis
A1 Martínez Pastor, Felipe
A1 Paz Cabello, Paulino de
A2 Biologia Celular
K1 Veterinaria
K1 Spermatozoa
K1 Ejaculate
K1 Electroejaculate
K1 Epididymis
K1 Ram
K1 Cryopreservation
K1 Egg yolk
K1 Glycerol
AB The objective of this study was to identify possible specificity in the extender formulation for the cryopreservation of ram spermatozoa recovered from three origins (ejaculate, electroejaculate or epididymis), by evaluating post-thawing sperm quality and fertility. Ejaculated, electroejaculated or epididymal spermatozoa samples obtained from identical rams (8) were cryopreserved in four different extenders (TES-Tris–fructose with one of two egg yolk concentrations: 10% Y10 and 20% Y20, and with one of two glycerol rates: 4% G4 and 8% G8). Samples were analyzed before and after cryopreservation by CASA (motility) and flow cytometry (viability with SYBR-14/PI and acrosomal status with PNA/PI). Spermatozoa obtained by electroejaculation were of poorer quality after freezing/thawing, demonstrating that protocols for these samples need to be optimized. Egg yolk at 20% was more appropriate for freezing sperm from any of the sources. In general, 4% glycerol improved the quality of post-thawing samples recovered from ejaculate and electroejaculate, while 8% glycerol was more appropriate for samples recovered from the epididymis. Based on these results, an analysis of fertility was conducted. Fertility rates were similar between ewe groups inseminated with post-thawed sperm obtained from two sources: ejaculate (cryopreserved in Y20 + G4), and cauda epididymis (Y20 + G8), and this rate was less in the electroejaculated sample (Y20 + G4)
PB Elsevier
YR 2019
FD 2019-05-07
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10612/10671
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10612/10671
NO Animal Reproduction Science, 2012 vol. 132, n. 3–4
NO P. 145-154
DS BULERIA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de León
RD 19-abr-2024