Analysis of Membrane Integrity, DNA Fragmentation and Mitochondrial Function in Pig Spermatozoa Sorted by Flowcytometer

  • Published : 2008.06.30

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the potential hazardous effects of sorting process by flowcytometry on the quality of boar spermatozoa by flowcytometer. Freshly collected boar semen was diluted and divided into two groups; control none sorted and sorted. Sperms in sorted group were processed with flowcytometer for cell sorting with $100\;{\mu}M$ nozzle under the 20 psi pressure. Measurements on each parameter were made at two time points, 0hr (right after sorting) and 24 hr post sorting. Although there was a tendency of lower viability in sorted group than none sorted control group, the percentage of live cells in control ($75.83{\pm}6.92\;&\;59.53{\pm}10.34$) was not significantly different from sorted ($59.70{\pm}7.37\;&\;43.97{\pm}3.76$) at both 0 and 24 hr post sorting. However, sorted sperm showed significantly lower mitochondrial function compared to the control at both 0 h ($79.37{\pm}3.22\;vs.\;63.50{\pm}10.05$) and 24 hr ($67.27{\pm}3.22$ vs. $46.97{\pm}5.37$) time points (p<0.007). Sperm DNA fragmentation rate was significantly lower in control ($22.0{\pm}7.04$) than that of sorted ($32.27{\pm}7.49$) at 24 hr time point (p<0.0002). Taken together, these data suggested thatsorting process by flowcytometer may have influenced sperm motility rather than viability. Also high speed sperm sorting by flowcytometer has significant effects on DNA fragmentation on elapsed time after sorting.

Keywords

References

  1. Boe-Hansen GB, Morris ID, Ersboll AK, Greve T, Christensen P (2005): DNA integrity in sexed bull sperm assessed by neutral Comet assay and sperm chromatin structure assay. Theriogenology 63:1789-1802 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.08.004
  2. De Ambrogi M, Spinaci M, Galeati G, Tamanini C (2006): Viability and DNA fragmentation in differently sorted boar spermatozoa. Theriogenology 66: 1994-2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.017
  3. D'Occhio MJ, Hengstberger KJ, Johnston SD (2007): Biology of sperm chromatin structure and relationship to male fertility and embryonic survival. Anim Reprod Sci. 101(1-2):1-17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.01.005
  4. Garner DL, Johnson LA (1995): Viability assessment of mammalian sperm using sybr-14 and propidium iodide. Biol Reprod 53:276-284 https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod53.2.276
  5. Garner, DL, Seidel GE Jr. (2008): History of commercializing sexed semen for cattle. Theriogenology 69:886-895 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.01.006
  6. Liu QH, Li J, Zhang SC, Xiao ZZ, Ding FH, Yu DD, Xu XZ (2007): Flow cytometry and ultrastructure of cryopreserved red seabream (Pagrus major) sperm. Theriogenology 67:1168-1174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.12.013
  7. Shapiro HM (2003): Practical flow cytometry. 4th ed. By John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey
  8. Son JH (2008): Sperm sex-sorting: past, present, and future. J Emb Trans. In press
  9. Spinaci M, De Ambrogi M, Volpe S, Galeati G, Tamanini C, Seren E (2005): Effect of staining and sorting on boar sperm membrane integrity, mitochondrial activity and in vitro blastocyst development. Theriogenology 64:191-201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.11.010
  10. Suh TK, Schenk JL, Seidel GE Jr (2005): A High pressure flow cytometric sorting damages sperm. Theriogenology 64:1035-1048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.02.002