The usefulness of combining traditional sperm assessments with in vitro heterospermic insemination to identify bulls of low fertility as estimated in vivo

Puglisi, Roberto; Pozzi, Anna; Foglio, Luciano; Spanò, Marcello; Eleuteri, Patrizia; Grollino, Maria Giuseppa; Bongioni, G.; Galli, Andrea

doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.04.006

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, marginal individual differences among highly fertile boars that were undetected with homospermic AI may actually be exacerbated with heterospermic AI, but would remain unclear at field level because genetic determination of paternity is unfeasible on a routine basis. The SNPs were highly efficient in confirming the paternity of all homospermic samples and of .94% of the piglets sired by heterospermic AI, as reported for genotype assignment in swine (Rohrer et al 2007;Harlizius et al 2011;Ramos et al 2011) and for paternity determination for bulls used in heterospermic AI (Puglisi et al 2012). Although high parental exclusion in swine was also achieved using microsatellite markers (Stahlberg et al 2000;Rohrer et al 2007), SNP panels are more sensitive for individual identification (Rohrer et al 2007) and more versatile, allowing comparison among data from different laboratories (Vignal et al 2002;Gabriel et al 2009;Kerstens et al 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In sheep, no difference was detected in the offspring after heterospermic AI, using sperm pools from rams of distinct breeds (Berger and Dally 2001). However, individual differences in male fertility were detected through paternity tests in rabbits using microsatellites (Vicente et al 2004) and in bulls using SNPs (Puglisi et al 2012). In swine, heterospermic AI has been widely used, but few studies have compared its efficiency against homospermic AI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contribution of boars to reproductive performance and paternity after homospermic and heterospermic artificial insemination

Ferreira

Sávio

Guarise

et al. 2015

Reprod. Fertil. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heterospermic AI is commonly used in swine despite preventing precise evaluation of individual boar fertility. The present study compared the contribution of four boars (A, B, C and D) for reproductive performance and for paternity using homospermic and heterospermic (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD and CD) AI (n=204 for homospermic AI; n=307 for heterospermic AI). Blood samples from the four boars, from all sows inseminated with heterospermic doses and from the umbilical cords of their piglets, as well as tissue smears from mummified fetuses, were genotyped using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Differences among boars were detected for the in vitro oocyte penetration rate and for the number of spermatozoa per oocyte (P<0.05), but not for sperm motility, mitochondrial functionality and integrity of the membrane, acrosome and DNA (P>0.05). Homospermic and heterospermic AI resulted in similar (P>0.05) farrowing rates (90.5% and 89.9%, respectively) and total litter size (12.4±0.4 and 12.7±0.7, respectively). Farrowing rate was lower for Boar B than for Boar C (P<0.05), but no other differences in reproductive performance among boars were observed with homospermic AI. The SNPs determined the paternity of 94.2% of the piglets sired by heterospermic AI. In the AC pool, paternity contribution per boar was similar (P>0.05), but differences between boars occurred in all other pools (P<0.05). Boar D achieved the greatest paternity contribution in all pools and parity categories (nearly 60%), whereas Boar B sired the fewest piglets (at most 40%). Reproductive performance was similar with homospermic and heterospermic AI, but differences in performance among boars undetected with homospermic AI were only evident after genotyping the piglets sired through heterospermic AI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of boars to reproductive performance and paternity after homospermic and heterospermic artificial insemination

Ferreira

Sávio

Guarise

et al. 2015

Reprod. Fertil. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bull fertility is defined as the ability of the sperm to fertilize and activate the egg, to sustain embryonic development, and is usually evaluated by determining sperm characteristics such as motility and morphology (Correa et al 1997). Although there are several approaches to evaluate capacitation status and membrane integrity using microscopy and/or flow cytometry in sperm cells, these techniques may still not be sufficient to predict overall male fertility (Januskauskas et al 1999, Puglisi et al 2012. One of the reasons for the failure of the aforementioned studies is that they primarily focused on the traits that are necessary for spermatozoa to reach and fertilize the oocyte, while ignoring other traits that are essential for egg activation and to support early embryonic development (Silva & Gadella 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular morphology and function of bull spermatozoa linked to histones and associated with fertility

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sub-par fertility in bulls is influenced by alterations in sperm chromatin, and it might not be solved with increased sperm concentration in artificial insemination. Appropriate histone retention during sperm chromatin condensation plays critical roles in male fertility. The objective of this study was to determine failures of sperm chromatin condensation associated with abnormal persistence or accessibility of histones by aniline blue (ANBL) test, expression levels, and cellular localizations of one variant and two core histones (H3.3, H2B, and H4 respectively) in the spermatozoa of low-fertility (LF) vs high-fertility (HF) bulls. The expression levels and cellular localizations of histones in spermatozoa were studied using immunoblotting, immunocytochemistry, and staining methods. The bioinformatics focused on the sequence identity and evolutionary distance of these proteins among three mammalian species: bovine, mouse, and human. We demonstrated that ANBL staining was different within the LF (1.73 (0.55, 0.19)) and HF (0.67 (0.17, 0.06)) groups (P!0.0001), which was also negatively correlated with in vivo bull fertility (rZK0.90, P!0.0001). Although these histones were consistently detectable and specifically localized in bull sperm cells, they were not different between the two groups. Except H2B variants, H3.3 and H4 showed 100% identity and were evolutionarily conserved in bulls, mice and humans. The H2B variants were more conserved between bulls and humans, than in mice. In conclusion, we showed that H2B, H3.3, and H4 were detectable in bull spermatozoa and that sperm chromatin condensation status, changed by histone retention, is related to bull fertility.

show abstract

“…Além disso, a estimativa de fertilidade por meio de cruzamentos ou ia é cara e demorada, e só é possível após o uso generalizado de um touro [20].…”

Section: Avaliação Da Fertilidade Em Tourosunclassified

“…Vários autores sugerem que a análise combinada de características de espermatozoides separados por swim-up, ensaio de penetração da zona pelúcida (zba, do inglês zona binding assay) e fiv pode ser usada para prever a fertilidade do touro [80,20].…”

Section: Testes In Vitro Na Estimativa Da Fertilidadeunclassified

Avaliações seminais e novas ferramentas genômicas na estimação da fertilidade em touros

Vega

Maciel

2015

Spei Domus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cómo citar este artículo: Ortiz-Vega WH, Maciel-Júnior VL, Quirino CR. Avaliações seminais e novas ferramentas genômicas na estimação da fertilidade em touros. Spei Domus. 2015;11(23) Resumo. Tema e alcance: a estimativa da fertilidade do reprodutor é uma ferramenta importante na escolha do macho, não só porque reflete o estado individual do reprodutor, mas também porque dito resultado influencia o futuro do rebanho. A presente revisão aborda o assunto fertilidade no macho bovino sob a perspectiva da biotecnologia do sêmen. Características: descreve as características seminais que influenciam o potencial reprodutivo e apresenta de forma geral técnicas laboratoriais rotineiras e inovadoras na avaliação de espermatozoides. Documentos base na área de biotecnologia de sêmen assim como artigos das últimas quatro décadas foram utilizados na revisão; além disso, aspectos-chave de manuais e livros de difusão mundial complementam o acervo bibliográfico referenciado. Achados: o amplo número de estudos sobre o tema e a diversidade nos resultados pressupõem vazios no conhecimento que abrem uma oportunidade na utilização de ferramentas genômicas e permitem explicar com maior acurácia os diferentes eventos fisiológicos presentes na expressão das características seminais referentes à fertilidade. Conclusões: a variância genética e as mudanças epigenéticas podem estar influenciando o potencial reprodutivo no macho; fenômenos funcionais ainda pouco conhecidos precisam ser elucidados no intuito de compreender e, talvez, alterar essa variação entre e inter reprodutores.Palavras-chave: espermatozoide, inseminação artificial, marcador molecular, proteômica.

show abstract

The usefulness of combining traditional sperm assessments with in vitro heterospermic insemination to identify bulls of low fertility as estimated in vivo

Cited by 30 publications

References 48 publications

Contribution of boars to reproductive performance and paternity after homospermic and heterospermic artificial insemination

Contribution of boars to reproductive performance and paternity after homospermic and heterospermic artificial insemination

Molecular morphology and function of bull spermatozoa linked to histones and associated with fertility

Avaliações seminais e novas ferramentas genômicas na estimação da fertilidade em touros

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About