title: Differences in the ability of spermatozoa from individual boar ejaculates to withstand different semen-processing techniques.
abstract: The present study aimed to evaluate the ability of spermatozoa from individual boar ejaculates to withstand different semen-processing techniques. Eighteen sperm-rich ejaculate samples from six boars (three per boar) were diluted in Beltsville Thawing Solution and split into three aliquots. The aliquots were (1) further diluted to 3×10(7) sperm/mL and stored as a liquid at 17°C for 72 h, (2) frozen-thawed (FT) at 1×10(9) sperm/mL using standard 0.5-mL straw protocols, or (3) sex-sorted with subsequent liquid storage (at 17°C for 6 h) or FT (2×10(7) sperm/mL using a standard 0.25-mL straw protocol). The sperm quality was evaluated based on total sperm motility (the CASA system), viability (plasma membrane integrity assessed using flow cytometry and the LIVE/DEAD Sperm Viability Kit), lipid peroxidation (assessed via indirect measurement of the generation of malondialdehyde (MDA) using the BIOXYTECH MDA-586 Assay Kit) and DNA fragmentation (sperm chromatin dispersion assessed using the Sperm-Sus-Halomax(®) test). Data were normalized to the values assessed for the fresh (for liquid-stored and FT samples) or the sorted semen samples (for liquid stored and the FT sorted spermatozoa). All of the four sperm-processing techniques affected sperm quality (P<0.01), regardless of the semen donor, with reduced percentages of motile and viable sperm and increased MDA generation and percentages of sperm with fragmented DNA. Significant (P<0.05) inter-boar (effect of boars within each semen-processing technique) and intra-boar (effect of semen-processing techniques within each boar) differences were evident for all of the sperm quality parameters assessed, indicating differences in the ability of spermatozoa from individual boars to withstand the semen-processing techniques. These results are the first evidence that ejaculate spermatozoa from individual boars can respond in a boar-dependent manner to different semen-processing techniques.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine and Animal Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, Spain.
authors.forename: Inma
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Parrilla
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: del Olmo
authors.forename: Laurien
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sijses
authors.forename: María J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Martinez-Alborcia
authors.forename: Cristina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Cuello
authors.forename: Juan M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Vazquez
authors.forename: Emilio A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Martinez
authors.forename: Jordi
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Roca
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002462:Cell Membrane / Q000502:physiology; D002470:Cell Survival / Q000502:physiology; D015925:Cryopreservation / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary; D053938:DNA Fragmentation; D005260:Female; D005434:Flow Cytometry / Q000662:veterinary; D008297:Male; D008315:Malondialdehyde / Q000032:analysis; D012662:Semen Preservation / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D013081:Sperm Motility / Q000502:physiology; D013094:Spermatozoa / Q000502:physiology*; D013552:Swine / Q000502:physiology*
chemical_list: D008315:Malondialdehyde