Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa

Extraction of epididymal spermatozoa may be necessary to avoid losing valuable genetic material, for example, from individuals of rare breeds or endangered species, but the resulting sperm samples may be of poor quality. Two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa from slaughterhouse mater...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ziyad Al-Kass, Sanna Eriksson, Jaana Peippo, Theodoros Ntallaris, Jane M. Morrell
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2024-12-01
Series:Veterinary and Animal Science
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000747
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846151766943465472
author Ziyad Al-Kass
Sanna Eriksson
Jaana Peippo
Theodoros Ntallaris
Jane M. Morrell
author_facet Ziyad Al-Kass
Sanna Eriksson
Jaana Peippo
Theodoros Ntallaris
Jane M. Morrell
author_sort Ziyad Al-Kass
collection DOAJ
description Extraction of epididymal spermatozoa may be necessary to avoid losing valuable genetic material, for example, from individuals of rare breeds or endangered species, but the resulting sperm samples may be of poor quality. Two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa from slaughterhouse material were compared. The bulls were 16–23 months of age. Spermatozoa were extracted by making an incision one cm in length in the tail of the epididymis to allow the spermatozoa to flow out (method A), or by flushing the tail of epididymis (method B). The two methods were used for each bull, alternating between right and left epididymis, i.e. if method A was used for the left epididymis in Bull 1, it was used for the right epididymis in bull 2, etc. Sperm concentration in the extracted samples was adjusted to 69 × 106/mL in Andromed; the sperm sample was packed in 0.25 mL straws. After cooling for two h at 5 °C, the straws were placed 4 cm above liquid nitrogen for 20 min before transferring them to liquid nitrogen. Sperm motility, viability, reactive oxygen species, membrane integrity and DNA fragmentation were analysed in the fresh samples and again after thawing. The results for all parameters in fresh semen were not different between methods. Although sperm quality was lower in thawed samples than in fresh samples, there was no difference in sperm quality between the two extraction methods in the thawed samples. In conclusion, both methods are useful for the extraction of bull epididymal spermatozoa.
format Article
id doaj-art-6df95193daf64863a11292f2806c19fa
institution Kabale University
issn 2451-943X
language English
publishDate 2024-12-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Veterinary and Animal Science
spelling doaj-art-6df95193daf64863a11292f2806c19fa2024-11-27T05:02:55ZengElsevierVeterinary and Animal Science2451-943X2024-12-0126100407Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoaZiyad Al-Kass0Sanna Eriksson1Jaana Peippo2Theodoros Ntallaris3Jane M. Morrell4Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Surgery and Theriogenology, College of Veterinary Medicine, university of Mosul, Mosul, IraqDepartment of Surgery and Theriogenology, College of Veterinary Medicine, university of Mosul, Mosul, IraqNordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), c/o NMBU – Biovit Box 5003, 1432 Ås, NorwayDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, SE-75007 Uppsala, SwedenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden; Corresponding author.Extraction of epididymal spermatozoa may be necessary to avoid losing valuable genetic material, for example, from individuals of rare breeds or endangered species, but the resulting sperm samples may be of poor quality. Two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa from slaughterhouse material were compared. The bulls were 16–23 months of age. Spermatozoa were extracted by making an incision one cm in length in the tail of the epididymis to allow the spermatozoa to flow out (method A), or by flushing the tail of epididymis (method B). The two methods were used for each bull, alternating between right and left epididymis, i.e. if method A was used for the left epididymis in Bull 1, it was used for the right epididymis in bull 2, etc. Sperm concentration in the extracted samples was adjusted to 69 × 106/mL in Andromed; the sperm sample was packed in 0.25 mL straws. After cooling for two h at 5 °C, the straws were placed 4 cm above liquid nitrogen for 20 min before transferring them to liquid nitrogen. Sperm motility, viability, reactive oxygen species, membrane integrity and DNA fragmentation were analysed in the fresh samples and again after thawing. The results for all parameters in fresh semen were not different between methods. Although sperm quality was lower in thawed samples than in fresh samples, there was no difference in sperm quality between the two extraction methods in the thawed samples. In conclusion, both methods are useful for the extraction of bull epididymal spermatozoa.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000747Sperm freezingCooled semenSperm recoveryBovine
spellingShingle Ziyad Al-Kass
Sanna Eriksson
Jaana Peippo
Theodoros Ntallaris
Jane M. Morrell
Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
Veterinary and Animal Science
Sperm freezing
Cooled semen
Sperm recovery
Bovine
title Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
title_full Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
title_fullStr Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
title_short Comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
title_sort comparison of two methods of extracting bull epididymal spermatozoa
topic Sperm freezing
Cooled semen
Sperm recovery
Bovine
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X24000747
work_keys_str_mv AT ziyadalkass comparisonoftwomethodsofextractingbullepididymalspermatozoa
AT sannaeriksson comparisonoftwomethodsofextractingbullepididymalspermatozoa
AT jaanapeippo comparisonoftwomethodsofextractingbullepididymalspermatozoa
AT theodorosntallaris comparisonoftwomethodsofextractingbullepididymalspermatozoa
AT janemmorrell comparisonoftwomethodsofextractingbullepididymalspermatozoa