Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:28:31.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of new and current methods in semen technology for genetic resource conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

W.V. Holt  and
P.F. Watson
W.V. Holt
Affiliation:
Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK
P.F. Watson
Affiliation:
Basic Veterinary Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU, UK
Get access

Abstract

The establishment of repositories of frozen semen, for the conservation of agricultural genetic resources, is not a simple matter of collecting and freezing semen in the hope that one day it will be suitable for use in an artificial insemination procedure. Important genetic issues need to be considered; for example, how many samples should be stored and from how many individuals? Aside from these, many biological and logistic issues must be considered. Cryopreservation technology does not work equally well in all species, often because of anatomical differences in the female reproductive tract leading to significant variability in the number of spermatozoa needed in order to achieve an acceptable conception rate. Moreover, spermatozoa from different species are not equally susceptible to cryoinjury. However, it is also emerging that semen samples from individuals within a species are also of different quality; several studies have revealed that these differences reflect the quality of DNA within the spermatozoon itself and also the efficacy of biochemical functions, including metabolic and signalling systems, within individual cells. As new possibilities to select spermatozoa for insemination arise, especially the use of flowsorting for gender selection, these issues may become more significant. In this article we interpret the way in which some of this new information may impact upon the practical implementation of genetic resource conservation.

Type
Section 3: Reproductive techniques to support conservation
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 30: Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 2004 , pp. 191 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeydeera, L. R., Johnson, L. A., Welch, G. R., Wang, W. H., Boquest, A. C., Cantley, T. C., Rieke, A. and Day, B. N. 1998. Birth of piglets preselected for gender following in vitro fertilization of in vitro matured pig oocytes by X and Y chromosome bearing spermatozoa sorted by high-speed flow cytometry. Theriogenology 50: 981–988.Google Scholar
Arav, A., Yavin, S., Zeron, Y., Natan, D., Dekel, I. and Gacitua, H. 2002. New trends in gamete's cryopreservation. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 187: 77–81.Google Scholar
Aslam, I., Fishel, S., Green, S., Campbell, A., Garratt, I., McDermott, H., Dowell, K. and Thornton, S. 1998. Can we justify spermatid microinjection for severe male factor infertility? Human Reproduction Update 4: 213–222.Google Scholar
Beernink, F. J., Dmowski, W. P. and Ericsson, R. J. 1993. Sex preselection through albumin separation of sperm. Fertility and Sterility 59: 382–386.Google Scholar
Chen, M. J., Guu, H. F. and Ho, E. S. 1997. Efficiency of sex pre-selection of spermatozoa by albumin separation method evaluated by double-labelled fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Human Reproduction 12: 1920–1926.Google Scholar
Clouthier, D. E., Avarbock, M. R., Maika, S. D., Hammer, R. E. and Brinster, R. L. 1996. Rat spermatogenesis in mouse testis. Nature 381: 418–421.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Garrisi, G. J., CongedoFerrara, T. A., Kieck, K. A., Schimmel, T. W. and Scott, R. T. 1997. Cryopreservation of single human spermatozoa. Human Reproduction 12: 994–100.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. K., Lindsay, K. S., Miller, J. F., Williamson, E. and Wood, P. J. 1982. Early embryonic mortality in women. Fertility and Sterility 38: 447–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evenson, D. P. 1999. Loss of livestock breeding efficiency due to uncompensable sperm nuclear defects. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 11: 1–15.Google Scholar
Ford, W. C. L., Mathur, R. S. and Hull, M. G. R. 1997. Intrauterine insemination: is it an effective treatment for male factor infertility. Bailliere's Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 11: 1–20.Google Scholar
Garner, D. L. 2001. Sex-Sorting mammalian sperm: concept to application in animals. Journal of Andrology 22: 519–526.Google Scholar
Gomendio, M., Harcourt, A. H. and Roldan, E. R. S. 1998. Sperm competition in mammals. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection. Edited by Birkhead, T. R. and Moller, A. P. Academic Press Ltd, San Diego, London, Boston, pp.667–755.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. A. P. 1998. Sperm evaluation: what should we be testing?, In Genetic diversity and conservation of animal genetic resources. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan., Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. A. P., Ashworth, P. J. C. and Miller, N. G. A. 1996. Bicarbonate/CO2, an effector of capacitation, induces a rapid and reversible change in the lipid architecture of boar sperm plasma membrane. Molecular Reproduction and Development 45: 378–391.Google Scholar
Holt, W. V. and Harrison, R. A. 2002. Bicarbonate Stimulation of Boar Sperm Motility via a Protein Kinase A- Dependent Pathway: Between-Cell and Between-Ejaculate Differences Are Not Due to Deficiencies in Protein Kinase A Activation. Journal of Andrology 23: 557–565.Google Scholar
Johnson, L., Nguyen, H. B., Petty, C. S. and Neaves, W. B. 1987. Quantification of human spermatogenesis - germ-cell degeneration during spermatocytogenesis and meiosis in testes from younger and older adult men. Biology of Reproduction 37: 739–747.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, L. A. 2000. Sexing mammalian sperm for production of offspring: the state-of-the- art. Animal Reproduction Science 60-61: 93–107.Google Scholar
Katila, T. 2001. Sperm-uterine interactions: a review. Animal Reproduction Science 68: 267–272.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, J. K. and Colenbrander, B. 2001. Disease control measures for genetic resource banking. In: Cryobanking the genetic resource; wildlife conservation for the future? Edited by Watson, P. F. and Holt, W. V. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. pp.69–84I.Google Scholar
Krueger, C., Rath, D. and Johnson, L. A. 1999. Low dose insemination in synchronized gilts. I52: 1363–1373.Google Scholar
Martinez, E. A., Vazquez, J. M., Roca, J., Lucas, X., Gil, M. A., Parrilla, I., Vazquez, J. L. and Day, B. N. 2001. Successful non-surgical deep intrauterine insemination with small numbers of spermatozoa in sows. Reproduction 122: 289–296.Google Scholar
Martinez, E. A., Vazquez, J. M., Roca, J., Lucas, X., Gil, M. A., Parrilla, I., Vazquez, J. L. and Day, B. N. 2002. Minimum number of spermatozoa required for normal fertility after deep intrauterine insemination in non-sedated sows. Reproduction 123: 163–170.Google Scholar
Morris, I. D., Ilott, S., Dixon, L. and Brison, D. R. 2002. The spectrum of DNA damage in human sperm assessed by single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay) and its relationship to fertilization and embryo development. Human Reproduction 17: 990–998.Google Scholar
Ostermeier, G. C., Sargeant, G. A., Yandell, B. S., Evenson, D. P. and Parrish, J. J. 2001. Relationship of bull fertility to sperm nuclear shape. Journal of Andrology 22: 595–603.Google Scholar
Racowsky, C. 2002. High rates of embryonic loss, yet high incidence of multiple births in human ART: is this paradoxical? Theriogenology 57: 87–96.Google Scholar
Ramos, L., Kleingeld, P., Meuleman, E., van Kooy, R., Kremer, J., Braat, D. and Wetzels, A. 2002. Assessment of DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa that were surgically retrieved from men with obstructive azoospermia. Fertility and Sterility 77: 233–237.Google Scholar
Russell, P. H., Lyaruu, V. H., Millar, J. D., Curry, M. R. and Watson, P. F. 1997. The potential transmission of infectious agents by semen packaging during storage for artificial insemination. Animal Reproduction Science 47: 337–342.Google Scholar
Seidel, G. E. Jr. and Johnson, L. A. 1999. Sexing mammalian sperm–overview. Theriogenology 52: 1267–1272.Google Scholar
Shannon, P. 1978. Factors affecting semen preservation and conception rates in cattle. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 54: 519–527.Google Scholar
Sun, J. G., Jurisicova, A. and Casper, R. F. 1997. Detection of deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation in human sperm: correlation with fertilization in vitro. Biology of Reproduction 56: 602–607.Google Scholar
Thurston, L. M., Watson, P. F., Mileham, A. J. and Holt, W. V. 2001. Morphologically distinct sperm subpopulations defined by Fourier shape descriptors in fresh ejaculates correlate with variation in boar semen quality following cryopreservation. Journal of Andrology 22: 382–394.Google Scholar
Upreti, G. C., Riches, P. C. and Johnson, L. A. 1988. Attempted sexing of bovine spermatozoa by fractionation on a Percoll density gradient. Gamete Research 20: 83–92.Google Scholar
Vishwanath, R., Pitt, C. J. and Shannon, P. 1996. Sperm numbers, semen age and fertility in fresh and frozen bovine semen. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56: 31–34.Google Scholar
Watson, P. F. and Holt, W. V. 2001. (Editors) Cryobanking the genetic resource; wildlife conservation for the future? Taylor and Francis, London, UK.Google Scholar