4.4 Article

Investigation of in vitro parameters and in vivo fertility of rabbit spermatozoa after chilled storage

期刊

ANIMAL REPRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 147, 期 3-4, 页码 135-143

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.04.014

关键词

Rabbit; Buck; Semen; Chilled storage; Flow cytometry; AI

资金

  1. Rural Industries Research and Development Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artificial insemination (AI) programmes in the rabbit meat industry require improved longevity of spermatozoa stored in vitro. Two studies evaluated the effects of storage temperature and extender on in vitro quality and fertility of rabbit spermatozoa over 96 h of chilled storage. In Experiment 1, three ejaculates were collected from each of five bucks and diluted 1:10 in either Extender A or B, and then divided further for storage at 5 degrees C or 15 degrees C. Sperm motility (MOT) was assessed by CASA at 0, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h of storage. Viability, acrosome integrity, mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), oxidative stress and DNA integrity of the two best extenders were assessed by flow cytometry. Extender B at 15 degrees C gave significantly higher values of MOT and MMP from 24 and 72 h, respectively. At 96 h, viability, acrosome and DNA integrity were best maintained at 15 degrees C (P< 0.05). In contrast, storage at 5 degrees C resulted in lower oxidative stress from 72 h. In Experiment 2, a pilot study examined fertility rates of does inseminated with spermatozoa diluted in Extender B and stored at 5 degrees C or 15 degrees C. Sixty seven multiparous does were inseminated with spermatozoa stored for 0 h (n =12; control), 48 h (n = 26) or 72 h (n = 29). Kindling rates and litter sizes for does inseminated with semen stored for 48 h at 5 degrees C or 15 degrees C and 72 h at 5 degrees C were similar (P> 0.05) to those of the controls; kindling rate dropped following insemination with spermatozoa held at 15 degrees C for 72 h, though litter size did not. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据