Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:35:44.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting storage of Slovak native rabbit semen in the gene bank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Barbora Kulíková ,
Marta Oravcová ,
Andrej Baláži ,
Peter Supuka  and
Peter Chrenek
Barbora Kulíková*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Nitra, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Lužianky, Slovak Republic.
Marta Oravcová
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Nitra, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Lužianky, Slovak Republic.
Andrej Baláži
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Nitra, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Lužianky, Slovak Republic.
Peter Supuka
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Košice, Komenského 73, 041 81 Košice, Slovak Republic.
Peter Chrenek
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Nitra, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Lužianky, Slovak Republic. Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovak Republic.
*
All correspondence to: Barbora Kulíková. Research Institute for Animal Production, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Nitra, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Lužianky, Slovak Republic. Tel: + 421 37 6546 186. Fax: + 421 37 6546 189. E-mail: b.kulikova@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this study, fresh and frozen–thawed semen of Nitra and Zobor rabbit breeds were evaluated for potential inter-breed or inter-male differences in sperm quality traits. Individual male semen from four rabbits of each breed were diluted (v:v; 1:1) in a freezing medium composed of a commercial diluent, 16% of dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO), 4% of Ficoll 70 and 2% of sucrose and frozen in liquid nitrogen vapours before being plunged into liquid nitrogen. Different motility traits, viability and plasma membrane integrity of fresh and frozen–thawed semen were evaluated in vitro using computer-assisted sperm analysis and flow cytometry. To evaluate the sperm fertilization ability, artificial insemination of fresh and frozen–thawed sperm was performed. Our results showed the effect of breed (P ≤ 0.05) on frozen–thawed sperm viability and plasma membrane integrity. Moreover, individual variability in semen quality among the rabbits was revealed (0.31 to 0.71 among quality traits). Our results thereby confirmed that the cryopreservation procedure could not ensure comparable sperm post-thaw survival for different breeds or males. Nevertheless, correlations between numbers of fresh total motile and progressively moving sperm and several quality parameters measured post thawing were revealed. Therefore, we suggest that the objective assessment of fresh rabbit sperm motility may be an effective indicator of frozen–thawed semen quality. Consequently, regular semen assessment is required in order to preserve good-quality insemination doses from native breeds.

Keywords

CryopreservationQuality traitRabbitSpermVariability
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 592 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvariño, J.M.R. (2000). Reproductive performance of male rabbits. World Rabbit Sci. 8 (Suppl. 1), 13–35.Google Scholar
Auerbach, A.B., Norinsky, R., Ho, W., Losos, K., Guo, Q., Chatterjee, S. & Joyner, A.L. (2003). Strain-dependent differences in the efficiency of transgenic mouse production. Transgenic Res. 12, 59–69.Google Scholar
Blesbois, E., Grasseau, I., Seigneurin, F., Mignon-Grasteau, S., Saint Jalme, M. & Mialon-Richard, M.M. (2008). Predictors of success of semen cryopreservation in chicken. Theriogenology 59, 252–61.Google Scholar
Bolet, G., Brun, J. M., Monnerot, M., Abeni, F., Arnal, C., Arnold, J., Bell, D., Bergoglio, G., Besenfelder, U., Bosze, S., Boucher, S., Chanteloup, N., Ducourouble, M.C., Durand-Tardif, M., Esteves, P.J., Ferrand, N., Gautier, A., Haas, C., Hewitt, G., Jehl, N., Joly, T., Koehl, P.F., Laube, T., Lechevestrier, S., López, M., Masoero, G., Menigoz, J.J., Piccinin, R., Queney, G., Saleil, G., Surridge, A., van der Loo, W., Vicente, J.S., Viudes de Castro, M.P., Virag, J.S. & Zimmermann, J.M. (2000). Evaluation and conservation of European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) genetic resources. First results and inferences. World Rabbit Sci. 8, 281–315.Google Scholar
Castellini, C., Battaglini, M. & Lattaioli, P. (1992). Effects of cryoprotectants and freezing on rabbit semen quality. J. Appl. Rabbit Res. 15, 431–8.Google Scholar
Castellini, C., Lattaioli, P., Moroni, M. & Minelli, A. (2000). Effect of seminal plasma on the characteristics and fertility of rabbit spermatozoa. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 63, 275–82.Google Scholar
Del Olmo, E., Bisbal, A., Maroto-Morales, A., García-Alvarez, O., Ramon, M., Jimenez-Rabadan, P., Martínez-Pastor, F., Soler, A.J., Garde, J.J. & Fernandez-Santes, M.R. (2013). Fertility of cryopreserved ovine semen is determined by sperm velocity. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 138, 102–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrel, P., Trouern-Trend, V., Foote, R.H. & Douglas-Hamilton, D. (1995). Repeatability of measurements on human, rabbit, and bull sperm by computer-assisted sperm analysis when comparing individual fields and means of 12 fields. Feril. Steril. 64, 208–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugan, T., Gröhn, Y. T., Kommisrud, E. Ropstad, E. & Reksen, O. (2007). Effects of sperm concentration at semen collection and storage period of frozen semen on dairy cow conception. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 97, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandéz, M., Roca, J., Ballester, J., Vasquez, J.M., Martinez, E.A., Johannisson, A., Saravia, F. & Rodriguez-Martinez, H. (2006). Differences in SCSA outcome among boars with different sperm freezability. Int. J. Androl. 29, 583–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirano, Y., Shibahara, H., Obara, H., Suzuki, T., Takamizawa, S., Jamaguchi, C., Tsunoda, H. & Sato, I., (2001). Relationship between sperm motility characteristics assesd by the computer–aided sperm analysis (CASA). and fertilization rates in vitro . J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 18, 213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoflack, G., Rijsselaere, T., Maes, D., Dewulf, J., Opsomer, G., de Kruif, A. & Van Soom, A. (2005). Validation and usefulness of the sperm quality analyser (SQA II-C) for bull semen analysis Reprod . Domest. Anim. 40, 237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iaffaldano, N., DiIorio, M. & Rosato, M.P. (2012). The cryopretectant used, its concentration, and the eqilibration time are critical for the successfull cryopreservation of rabbit sperm: Dimethylacetamide versus dimethylsulfoxide. Theriogenology 78, 1381–9.Google Scholar
Kulíková, B., DiIorio, M., Kubovičová, E., Kuželová, L., Iaffaldano, N. & Chrenek, P. (2014). The cryoprotective effect of Ficoll on rabbit spermatozoa quality. Zygote 23, 785–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavara, R., Mocé, E., Lavara, F., Viudes de Castro, M.P. & Vicente, J.S. (2005). Do parameters of seminal quality correlate with the results of on-farm inseminations in rabbits? Theriogenology 64, 1130–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavara, R., David, I., Mocé, E., Baselga, M. & Vicente, J.S. (2013). Environmental and male variation factors of freezability in rabbit semen. Theriogenology 79, 582–9.Google Scholar
Leibo, S.P., Kubisch, H.M., DeeSchramm, R., Harrison, R.M. & VandeVoort, C.A. (2006). Male-to male differences in post-thaw motility of rhesus spermatozoa after cryopreservation of replicate ejaculates. J. Med. Primatol. 36, 151–63.Google Scholar
Long, J.A. (2006). Avian semen cryopreservation: what are the biological challenges? Poultry Sci. 85, 232–6.Google Scholar
Marti, E., Mara, EL., Marti, J.I., Muiño-Blanco, T. & Cebrián-Pérez, J.A. (2007). Seasonal variations in antioxidant enzyme activity in ram seminal plasma. Theriogenology 67, 1446–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mocé, E. & Vicente, J.S. (2009). Rabbit sperm cryopreservation: a review. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 110, 1–24.Google Scholar
Mocé, E., Vicente, J.S. & Lavara, R. (2003). Effect of freezing–thawing protocols on the performance of semen from three rabbit lines after artificial insemination. Theriogenology 60, 115–23.Google Scholar
Mocé, E., Lavara, R. & Vicente, J.S. (2005). Influence of donor male on the fertility of frozen–thawed rabbit sperm after artificial insemination of females of different genotypes. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 40, 516–21.Google Scholar
Muiño-Blanco, T., Pérez-Pé, R., Cebrián-Pérez, J.A. (2008). Seminal plasma proteins and sperm resistance to stress. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 43, 18–31.Google Scholar
Peterson, K, Kappen, MA, Ursem, PJ, Nothling, JO, Colenbrander, B, Gadella, BM (2007). Microscopic and flow cytometric semen assessment of Dutch AI-bucks: effects of semen processing procedures and their correlation to fertility. Theriogenology 67, 1163–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piles, M. & Baselga, M., (2012). Breeding programs for improving male reproductive performance and efficiency of AI dose production in paternal lines: fleasibility and limitations. WRSA, Proceedings 10th World Rabbit Congress, 2012 Sharm El-Sheigh-Egypt, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Sánchez, A.I., O'Donoghue, R., Novak, S., Dyck, M, K., Cosgrove, J.R., Dixon, W.T., Foxcroft, G.R. (2006). Relative value of routine semen evaluation and IVF technology for determining relative boar fertility. Theriogenology 66, 736–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safaa, H.M., Vicente, J.S., Lavara, R. & Viudes de Castro, M.P. (2008). Semen evaluation of two selected lines of rabbit bucks. World Rabbit Sci. 16, 141–8.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2009). SAS/STAT® 9.2 User's Guide, Second Edition, Cary, NC,USA.Google Scholar
Sellem, E., Broekhuijse, M.L.W.J., Chevrier, L., Camugli, S., Schmitt, E., Schiber, L., Koenen, E.P.C. (2015). Use of combinations of in vitro quality assessments to predict fertility of bovine semen. Theriogenology 84, 1447– 54.Google Scholar
Thurston, L.M., Watson, P.F. & Holt, W.V. (2002). Semen cryopreservation: a genetic explanation for species and individual variation? Cryoletters 23, 255–62.Google Scholar
Tusell, L., Legarra, A., García-Tomás, M., Rafel, O., Ramon, J. & Piles, M., (2012). Genetic basis of semen traits and their relationship with growth rate in tabbits. J. Anim. Sci. 90, 1385–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidament, M. (2005). French field result on factors affecting fertility of frozen stallion semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci, 89, 115–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viudes de Castro, M.P., Marco-Jiménez, F., Vicente, J.S., Navarro, E., Lavara, R. & Mocé, E. (2004). Sperm kinetic parameters and differences in seminal plasma composition among two rabbit lines. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 39, abstract P13.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, K.E., Hofmo, P.O., Tverdal, A. & Miller, R.R. (2006). Within and between breed differences in freezing tolerance and plasma membrane fatty acid composition of boar sperm. Reproduction 131, 887–94.Google Scholar