J Vet Sci.  2010 Jun;11(2):151-154. 10.4142/jvs.2010.11.2.151.

Relationship between sperm quality traits and field-fertility of porcine semen

• Tsakmakidis IA
• Lymberopoulos AG
• Khalifa TA

• KMID: 1110862
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2010.11.2.151

Abstract

An investigation involving seven boars, active in artificial insemination, and 1,350 multiparous sows was conducted at a private farm and aimed at examining the relationship between sperm quality traits and boar fertility in terms of farrowing rate and litter size. This experiment was done for 6 months. The semen samples were evaluated for subjective sperm motility and concentration. Ejaculates with at least 1 x 10(8) sperm/mL and 70% sperm progressive motility were extended with a commercial medium to 30 x 10(6) sperm/mL and used for artificial insemination (AI). AI dose was 100 mL semen containing 3 x 10(9) spermatozoa. Aliquots of diluted semen were assessed for live morphologically normal spermatozoa (LMNS, eosin-nigrosin stain exclusion assay) and sperm chromatin instability (SCI, acridine orange assay). Farrowing rates according to different boar sperm varied (p < 0.001) from 59.3 to 88.92%. The mean values of LMNS (47.2~76.5%) and SCI (0.16~4.67%) differed significantly among boars. LMNS (r = 0.79, p < 0.05) and SCI (r = -0.90, p < 0.02) accounted for 62.2 and 81.7% of the variability in farrowing rates, respectively. After the combination of sperm traits, the relationship between percentage of LMNS with stable chromatin structure and farrowing rate was significant (r = 0.86, p < 0.05). The number of live piglets per parturition was not significantly correlated with sperm quality attributes. In conclusion, boar fertility after AI with freshly diluted semen can be predicted based on the evaluation of sperm morphology and chromatin integrity.

Keyword

acridine orange; chromatin integrity; field fertility; porcine semen; sperm motility

MeSH Terms

Acridine Orange/chemistry
Animals
Animals, Newborn
Chromatin/physiology
Female
Fertility/*physiology
Fluorescent Dyes/chemistry
Litter Size
Male
Pregnancy
Sperm Motility/physiology
Spermatozoa/*physiology
Swine/*physiology

Reference

1. Agarwal A, Said TM. Role of sperm chromatin abnormalities and DNA damage in male infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2003. 9:331–345.

2. Ahmadi A, Ng SC. Fertilizing ability of DNA-damaged spermatozoa. J Exp Zool. 1999. 284:696–704.

3. Alm K, Peltoniemi OA, Koskinen E, Andersson M. Porcine field fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm morphology. Reprod Domest Anim. 2006. 41:210–213.

4. Amann RP, Seidel GE Jr, Mortimer RG. Fertilizing potential in vitro of semen from young beef bulls containing a high or low percentage of sperm with a proximal droplet. Theriogenology. 2000. 54:1499–1515.

5. Boe-Hansen GB, Christensen P, Vibjerg D, Nielsen MB, Hedeboe AM. Sperm chromatin structure integrity in liquid stored boar semen and its relationships with field fertility. Theriogenology. 2008. 69:728–736.

6. Chalah T, Brillard JP. Comparison of assessment of fowl sperm viability by eosin-nigrosin and dual fluorescence (SYBR-14/PI). Theriogenology. 1998. 50:487–493.

7. Evenson DP. Loss of livestock breeding efficiency due to uncompensable sperm nuclear defects. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1999. 11:1–15.

8. Evenson DP, Thompson L, Jost L. Flow cytometric evaluation of boar semen by the sperm chromatin structure assay as related to cryopreservation and fertility. Theriogenology. 1994. 41:637–651.

9. Flowers WL. Management of boars for efficient semen production. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 1997. 52:67–78.

10. Gadea J, Matás C. Sperm factors related to in vitro penetration of porcine oocytes. Theriogenology. 2000. 54:1343–1357.

11. Gadea J, Sellés E, Marco MA. The predictive value of porcine seminal parameters on fertility outcome under commercial conditions. Reprod Domest Anim. 2004. 39:303–308.

12. Ivanova M, Mollova M. Zona-penetration in vitro test for evaluating boar sperm fertility. Theriogenology. 1993. 40:397–410.

13. Johnson WH. The significance to bull fertility of morphologically abnormal sperm. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 1997. 13:255–270.

14. Juonala T, Lintukangas S, Nurttila T, Andersson M. Relationship between semen quality and fertility in 106 AI-Boars. Reprod Domest Anim. 1998. 33:155–158.

15. Lee HL, Kim SH, Ji DB, Kim YJ. A comparative study of Sephadex, glass wool and Percoll separation techniques on sperm quality and IVF results for cryopreserved bovine semen. J Vet Sci. 2009. 10:249–255.

16. Petrie A, Watson PF. Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science. 2006. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell;1–240.

17. Quintero-Moreno A, Rigau T, Rodríguez-Gil JE. Regression analyses and motile sperm subpopulation structure study as improving tools in boar semen quality analysis. Theriogenology. 2004. 61:673–690.

18. Sailer BL, Jost LK, Evenson DP. Mammalian sperm DNA susceptibility to in situ denaturation associated with the presence of DNA strand breaks as measured by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase assay. J Androl. 1995. 16:80–87.

19. Silva PF, Gadella BM. Detection of damage in mammalian sperm cells. Theriogenology. 2006. 65:958–978.

20. Tejada RI, Mitchell JC, Norman A, Marik JJ, Friedman S. A test for the practical evaluation of male fertility by acridine orange (AO) fluorescence. Fertil Steril. 1984. 42:87–91.

21. Waberski D, Dirksen G, Weitze KF, Leiding C, Hahn R. Field studies of the effect of sperm motility and morphology on the fertility of boars used for insemination. Tierarztl Prax. 1990. 18:591–594.

22. Ward WS, Coffey DS. DNA packaging and organization in mammalian spermatozoa: comparison with somatic cells. Biol Reprod. 1991. 44:569–574.

23. Xu X, Pommier S, Arbov T, Hutchings B, Sotto W, Foxcroft GR. In vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen quality and boar fertility. J Anim Sci. 1998. 76:3079–3089.

24. Xu X, Seth PC, Harbison DS, Cheung AP, Foxcroft GR. Semen dilution for assessment of boar ejaculate quality in pig IVM and IVF systems. Theriogenology. 1996. 46:1325–1337.