CSIRO Publishing Books Journals About Us Shopping Cart You are here: Journals > Reproduction, Fertility and Development   
Reproduction, Fertility and Development
  Vertebrate Reproductive Science & Technology
 
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Research Fronts
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Instructions to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
General Information
Review Article
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 Connect with us
facebook   youtube

Training

Publication Workshops


 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 19(1)

26 SPERM REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF FETAL FIBROBLAST CELLS ON A NUCLEAR TRANSFER–CLONED BULL AND ON AN ORIGINAL PATERNAL BULL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

S.-H. Bae, D.-H. Kim, S.-W. Kim, G.-S. Im, M.-J. Lee, J.-W. Ryu, H.-H. Seong, B.-S. Yang and B.-C. Yang

Reproduction, Fertility and Development 19(1) 131 - 132

Abstract

Recently, cloning technology has produced newborn calves from fetal fibroblast cells and somatic cells. These cloned calves appear to be normal and healthy in terms of reproductive ability. Therefore, we undertook this study to compare the reproductive ability of cloned sperm from the clones themselves and sperm obtained from the frozen semen of the paternal bull (KPN-178). Two cloned bulls from fetal fibroblast cell nuclear transfers (Korean HanWoo Clone-38, 34 months old, and Clone-39, 30 months old) were selected. Sperm from the cloned groups (C-38 and C-39), cloned-38 fresh sperm, and sperm from the paternal bull (KPN-178) were analyzed for the following sperm reproductive characteristics: sperm motility, by computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA); sperm mitochondrial activity, by flow cytometer after mitotracker staining; and sperm viability, by flow cytometer after staining with live/dead sperm viability kits, both PI and SYBR. Sperm motility was evaluated with Percoll-treated or non-Percoll-treated frozen-thawed spermatozoa. In the Percoll-treated group, total motility of the paternal bull sperm (KPN-178: 75.14%) was significantly lower than that of cloned sperm (C-38: 90.42%; C-39: 87.62%: C-38 fresh: 93.97%; P < 0.05). The non-Percoll-treated group showed different results compared to the Percoll results (P < 0.05), i.e. the total motility of C-38 (92.47%) and C-38 fresh (92.47%) sperm was significantly higher than that of C-39 (79.52%) and KPN-178 (78.41%) sperm. The mitochondrial activity staining rate of KPN-178 (58.22%) sperm was low compared to that of C-38 (88.65%), C-39 (89.45%), C-38 fresh (88.66%) sperm. The sperm viability tests showed similar results (P < 0.05) for all sperm groups: C-38 (PI: 42.53% and SYBR: 46.28%), C-39 (PI: 39.03% and SYBR: 66.18%), C-38 fresh (PI: 34.32% and SYBR: 57.10%), and KPN-178 (PI: 14.43% and SYBR: 47.86%). However, the PI staining of KPN-178 was lower than that of the other sperm groups. Next, in vitro fertilization (IVF) was investigated to compare the reproductive ability of C-38, C-39, KPN-178, and Control (normal bull) sperm. The results, development to the 2-cell stage (157/228, 68.90%; 85/116, 73.28%; 78/114, 68.42%; 61/79, 77.21%, respectively) and blastocyst rates (41/228, 18.0%; 35/116, 30.17%; 26/114, 22.81%; 20/79, 25.32%, respectively) were evaluated (P < 0.05). The IVF rates were not different among cloned bull, paternal bull, and normal bull sperm. A cloned female bovine was successfully impregnated by cloned bull sperm (C-38) using artificial insemination. The calf resulting from this prenancy showed no signs of phenotypical abnormalities. These results suggest that the physiology of cloned bulls and the quality of semen from cloned bulls show no evidence of any deleterious effects.



Full text doi:10.1071/RDv19n1Ab26

© CSIRO 2007

 
 Export Citation
 Print
  
  
    


 
Top  Email this page
 
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2012