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

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

 Connect with us
facebook   youtube

 

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

119 OXIDATIVE STRESS DURING THE CRYOPRESERVATION OF BOAR SPERMATOZOA

M. Hernandez, J. M. Vazquez, E. A. Martinez and J. Roca

Reproduction, Fertility and Development 19(1) 177 - 177

Abstract

The cryopreservation procedure causes dramatic changes in boar sperm survival but it is yet unclear where and how the process affects spermatozoa. Cryopreservation damage appears partly associated with oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The present study evaluates the effect that various steps of a conventional cycle of cryopreservation have on the intracellular production of ROS by boar spermatozoa (spz). Sperm-rich fractions collected from 2 mature boars (3 ejaculates per boar), cooled to 17°C, and kept for 16 h were cryopreserved following a standard freeze–thaw process with 0.5-mL plastic straws. The production of ROS was recorded in 5 steps of the cryopreservation process. These steps were as follows: step (1) after collection, when the fresh semen was extended (1:1, v/v) in Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS, 205 mM glucose, 20.39 mM NaCl, 5.4 mM KCl, 15.01 mM NaHCO3, and 3.35 mM EDTA); step (2) after cooling and storage for 16 h at 17°C; step (3) after centrifugation (2400g for 3 min) and re-extension of the pellet with lactose-egg yolk extender; step (4) at 5°C, after the addition of lactose-egg yolk-glycerol-Equex Stem Paste to 1 × 109 spz mL; and step (5) immediately after thawing at 37°C for 20 s. For the ROS measurement, all samples were re-extended in BTS (3 × 106 spz mL-1) and incubated without (basal ROS level) or with ROS inducers (1 mM tert-butyl hydroperoxide) for 120 min at 37°C and 5% CO2. Cells were simultaneously stained with 22,72-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate (1 µM) to estimate the production of ROS, and propidium iodide (12 µM) to exclude dead sperm from the analysis. Samples were evaluated at 30 min and 120 min by flow cytometry (Coulter Epics XL; Coulter Corporation, Miami, FL, USA); further analyses of the parameters were done by FCSExpress software (DeNovo Software, Thornhill, Ontario, Canada). ROS production was expressed as the mean of the green intensity fluorescence units of the viable sperm population. Data from 3 replicates were analyzed as a split plot design using a mixed model ANOVA including cryopreservation step, boar, and incubation time as fixed effects and replicate as random effect. Results indicated that the basal ROS formation remained relatively low and constant (P = 0.95) through the cryopreservation process, without differences between boars (P = 0.559), although with a significant increase after 120 min of incubation (P < 0.001). However, the exposure to tert-butyl hydroperoxide significantly increased the intracellular ROS formation in all of the steps (P < 0.001), showing significant differences between them, and being especially raised at steps 3 and 4. In conclusion, the present study confirms that the basal intracellular ROS production during cryopreservation of boar sperm is low. Nevertheless, the susceptibility of those spermatozoa to external stresses vary through the cryopreservation process, especially after centrifugation and later extension at 17°C and after the slow cooling at 5°C.

This work was supported by CICYT (AGF2005-00706), Madrid, Spain



Full text doi:10.1071/RDv19n1Ab119

© CSIRO 2007

 
 Export Citation
 Print
  
  
    


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

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2012