Comparative efficacy of enrichment of spermatozoa using swim up vis-à-vis nano-technique in buffalo bull

Comparative efficacy of enrichment of spermatozoa using swim up vis-à-vis nano-technique in buffalo bull

Title: Comparative efficacy of enrichment of spermatozoa using swim up vis-à-vis nano-technique in buffalo bull

Authors: Omer Din, AR Mustapha, Beigh Yaqoob Amin, K Rahul, Abhishek K, SK Ghosh, JK Prasad, Ajay Kumar, Praveen Singh, S Bag, Megha Pande and N Srivastava

Source: Ruminant Science (2018)-7(1):73-76.

Cite this reference as: Din Omer, Mustapha AR, Amin Beigh Yaqoob, Rahul K, Abhishek K, Ghosh SK, Prasad JK, Kumar Ajay, Singh Praveen, Bag S, Pande Megha and Srivastava N (2018). Comparative efficacy of enrichment of spermatozoa using swim up vis-à-vis nano-technique in buffalo bull. Ruminant Science 7(1):73-76.

Abstract

Comparative efficacy of depletion of dead/damaged spermatozoa using nano-purification and swim up technique was studied. Semen ejaculate of one Murrah buffalo bull was divided into three aliquots, first one was processed following routine protocol (Gr I), whereas second and third aliquot were subjected to swim up and nano-purification protocols for removal of dead spermatozoa. Though there was a significant decrease in the sperm concentration (307.28±4.90, 287.35±3.25 and 266.68±5.25 million/ mL, in Gr I, II, and III, respectively), a significant improvement in viability (76.21±1.07, 73.44±3.17, and 87.85±0.80%, respectively in Gr I, II and III) in reverse order was recorded. The mean efficiency (per cent) of nano-purification based on concentration, viability, individual progressive motility, and sperm morphological abnormalities was 13.73±0.94, 11.63±0.70, 11.67±1.67, and 3.53±0.52 at lag-stage (at the end of nano-purification), respectively. Results from present study revealed nano-purification using anti-ubiquitin particles effectively removed dead/damaged spermatozoa at lag-stage much more efficiently than swim up technique.

 

References

Awda BJ, Mackenzie Bell M and Buhr MM (2009). Reactive oxygen species and boar sperm function. Biology of Reproduction 81:553-561.

Kadirvel G, Kumar S and Kumaresan A (2009). Lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial membrane potential and DNA integrity of spermatozoa in relation to intracellular reactive oxygen species in liquid and frozen-thawed buffalo semen. Animal Reproduction Science 114(1):25-134.

Odhiambo JF, DeJarnette JM, Geary TW, Kennedy CE and Suarez SS (2014). Increased conception rates in beef cattle inseminated with nanopurified bull semen. Biology of Reproduction 91(4):1-10.

Parrish JJ, Krogenaes A and Susko-Parrish JL (1995). Effect of bovine sperm separation by either swim-up or percoll method on success of in vitro fertilization and early embryonic development. Theriogenology 44:859-869.

Purdy PH (2008). Ubiquitination and its influence in boar sperm physiology and cryopreservation. Theriogenology 70:818-826.

Roca J, Parrillaa I, Gila MA, Cuelloa C, Martineza EA and Rodriguez-Martinez H (2016). Non-viable sperm in the ejaculate: Lethal escorts for contemporary viable sperm. Animal Reproduction Science 169:24-31.

Salisbury GW, Van Demark NL and Lodge JR (1978). Physiology of Reproduction and Artificial Insemination of Cattle. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Co. pp 428-441.

Shoae A and Zamiri MJ (2008). Effect of butylated hydroxytoluene on bull spermatozoa frozen in egg yolk-citrate extender. Animal Reproduction Science 104(2-4):414-418.

Snedecor SW and Cochran WG (1994). Statistical Methods. 8th Edn, Iowa State University Press, USA.

Sutovsky P and Kennedy CE (2013). Biomarker-based nanotechnology for the improvement of reproductive performance in beef and dairy cattle. Industrial Biotechnology 9(1):24-30.

Swanson W  and   Bearden  HJ   (1951).   An   Eosin-Nigrosin   stain   for differentiating live and dead bovine spermatozoa. Journal of Animal Science 10:981-987.

Upreti GC, Jensen K, Munday R, Duganzich DM, Vishwanath R and Smith JF (1998).Studies on aromatic amino acid oxidase activity in ram spermatozoa: Role of pyruvate as an antioxidant. Animal Reproduction Science 51:275-287.