» Articles » PMID: 38200818

Post-Thaw Storage Temperature Influenced Boar Sperm Quality and Lifespan Through Apoptosis and Lipid Peroxidation

Overview
Journal Animals (Basel)
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38200818
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Cryopreservation deteriorates boar sperm quality and lifespan, which restricts the use of artificial insemination with frozen-thawed boar semen in field conditions. The objective of this study was to test the effects of post-thaw storage time and temperature on boar sperm survival. Semen ejaculates from five Landrace boars (one ejaculate per boar) were collected and frozen following a 0.5 mL-straw protocol. Straws from the five boars were thawed and diluted 1:1 (v:v) in BTS. The frozen-thawed semen samples were aliquoted into three parts and respectively stored at 5 °C, 17 °C, and 37 °C for up to 6 h. At 0.5, 2, and 6 h of storage, sperm motility, viability, mitochondrial membrane potential, and intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and apoptotic changes were measured. Antioxidant and oxidant levels were tested in boar sperm (SPZ) and their surrounding environment (SN) at each timepoint. The results showed significant effects of post-thaw storage time and temperature and an impact on boar sperm quality (total and progressive motility, VCL, viability, acrosome integrity), early and late sperm apoptotic changes, and changes in MDA levels in SPZ and SN. Compared to storage at 5 °C and 37 °C, frozen-thawed semen samples stored at 17 °C displayed better sperm quality, less apoptotic levels, and lower levels of SPZ MDA and SN MDA. Notably, post-thaw storage at 17 °C extended boar sperm lifespan up to 6 h without obvious reduction in sperm quality. In conclusion, storage of frozen-thawed boar semen at 17 °C preserves sperm quality for up to 6 h, which facilitates the use of cryopreserved boar semen for field artificial insemination.

Citing Articles

Boar-to-Boar Variations in Quality Characteristics of Sperm from Different Ejaculates Following Freezing-Thawing.

Fraser L, Zasiadczyk L, Mogielnicka-Brzozowska M Cells. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39937003 PMC: 11817640. DOI: 10.3390/cells14030212.


Integrating the milk microbiome signatures in mastitis: milk-omics and functional implications.

Reuben R, Torres C World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2025; 41(2):41.

PMID: 39826029 PMC: 11742929. DOI: 10.1007/s11274-024-04242-1.


Protective Effects of Betaine on Boar Sperm Quality during Liquid Storage and Transport.

Li C, Liu C, Chen Y, Zhao Y, Tan M, He B Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(18).

PMID: 39335300 PMC: 11429310. DOI: 10.3390/ani14182711.


Phytochemical Screening, Antioxidant Effect and Sperm Quality of the Stamen Extracts on Charolais Cattle Sperm Induced by Ferrous Sulfate.

Laoung-On J, Ounjaijean S, Sudwan P, Boonyapranai K Plants (Basel). 2024; 13(7).

PMID: 38611489 PMC: 11013934. DOI: 10.3390/plants13070960.

References
1.
Vilagran I, Yeste M, Sancho S, Castillo J, Oliva R, Bonet S . Comparative analysis of boar seminal plasma proteome from different freezability ejaculates and identification of Fibronectin 1 as sperm freezability marker. Andrology. 2015; 3(2):345-56. DOI: 10.1111/andr.12009. View

2.
Fraser L, Zasiadczyk L, Strzezek J, Strzezek R, Karpiesiuk K . Freezability and fertility of frozen-thawed boar semen supplemented with ostrich egg yolk lipoproteins. Pol J Vet Sci. 2018; 21(2):255-263. DOI: 10.24425/119046. View

3.
Barranco I, Padilla L, Perez-Patino C, Vazquez J, Martinez E, Rodriguez-Martinez H . Seminal Plasma Cytokines Are Predictive of the Outcome of Boar Sperm Preservation. Front Vet Sci. 2019; 6:436. PMC: 6904304. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00436. View

4.
Knox R . The Fertility of Frozen Boar Sperm When used for Artificial Insemination. Reprod Domest Anim. 2015; 50 Suppl 2:90-7. DOI: 10.1111/rda.12552. View

5.
Moazamian R, Polhemus A, Connaughton H, Fraser B, Whiting S, Gharagozloo P . Oxidative stress and human spermatozoa: diagnostic and functional significance of aldehydes generated as a result of lipid peroxidation. Mol Hum Reprod. 2015; 21(6):502-15. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gav014. View