Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T07:33:22.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimization of artificial fertilization in the stinging catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2010

J. Godwin Christopher ,
A.G. Murugesan  and
N. Sukumaran
J. Godwin Christopher*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences and Technology, VIT University, Vellore–632 014, India.
A.G. Murugesan
Affiliation:
SPCES, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi–627 412, India.
N. Sukumaran
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, VELS University, Pallavaram, Chennai–600 117, India.
*
All correspondence to: J. Godwin Christopher, School of Biosciences and Technology, VIT University, Vellore–632 014, India. Tel: +91 99766 05776. Fax: +91 416 2243092. e-mail: godwinj@vit.ac.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Determination of optimum sperm requirement in artificial breeding helps to improve the fertilization efficiency, sperm economy and minimize the sacrificing of males for milt. Quantification of sperm cells was done by spectrophotometer at 420 nm followed by haemocytometer counting. Best correlation (r2 = 0.97) was recorded. The minimum number of sperm required for optimal fertilization success in Heteropneustes fossilis was determined. An average fertilization success of 78–93% was recorded at 8 × 103 to 8 × 107 sperm per egg. The optimum contact duration of gametes was 5 minutes. The highest fertilization rate of 98.18% was recorded at 8 × 107 spermatozoa.egg−1.

Keywords

Artificial breedingFertilizationOptimal sperm requirementSperm assessmentSperm-to-egg ratio
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 63 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Billard, R. (1982). Reproductive physiology and fish culture. In Proc. Int. Symp. Reprod. Physiol. Fish, (eds Ritcher, C.J.J. & Goos, H.J.), pp. 1–2. Wageningen, The Netherlands: PUDOC, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Billard, R. & Cosson, M.P. (1992). Some problems related to the assessment of sperm motility in fresh water fish. J. Exp. Zool. 261, 122–31.Google Scholar
Billard, R., Breton, B. & Jalabert, B. (1971). La production spermatogenetique chez is truite. Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 11, 199–212.Google Scholar
Buyukhatipogly, S. & Holtz, W. (1984). Sperm output in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Effect of age, timing and frequency of stripping and presences of females. Aquaculture 37, 63–71.Google Scholar
Ciereszko, P.P. & Dabrowzki, K. (1993). Estimation of sperm concentration of rainbow trout, white fish and yellow perch using a spectrophotometric technique. Aquaculture 109, 367–73.Google Scholar
Erdal, A.W. & Graham, E.F. (1987). Fertility of telecast semen as affected by dilution and storage in a seminal plasma-mimicking medium. Aquaculture 60, 311–21.Google Scholar
Fauvel, C., Savoye, O., Dreanno, C., Cosson, J. & Suquet, M. (1999). Characteristics of sperm of captive sea bass in relation to its fertilization potential. J. Fish Biol. 54, 356–69.Google Scholar
Gwo, J.C., Strawn, K., Longnecker, M.T. & Amold, C.R. (1991). Cryopreservation of Atlantic croaker spermatozoa. Aquaculture 94, 355–75.Google Scholar
Haug, T. (1990). Biology of the Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus (L. 1758). Adv. Marine Biol. 26, 7–69.Google Scholar
Lal, K.K., Barman, A.S., Punia, P., Khare, P., Mohindra, V., Lal, B., Gopalakrishnan, A., Sah, R.S. & Lakra, W.S. (2009). Effect of extender composition on sperm cryopreservation of Asian catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) and Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus). Asian Fish. Sci. 22, 137–42.Google Scholar
Leung-Trujillo, J.R. & Lawrence, A.L. (1987). Observations on the decline in sperm quality of Penaeus setiferus under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture 65, 363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linhart, O., Billard, R., Kouril, J. & Hamackovas, J. (1997). Artificial insemination and gamete management in European catfish Silurus glanis L. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiol. 44, 9–33.Google Scholar
Manjula, V. & Malancha, S. (2005). Comparison of tRNA activity under homologous and heterologous conditions during the reproductive cycle of Heteropneustes fossilis. Mol. Biol. Reports 26, 217–22.Google Scholar
Munkittric, K.R. & Moccia, R.D. (1987). Seasonal changes in quality of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) semen: effect of a delay in stripping on spermatocrit, motility, volume and seminal plasma constituents. Aquaculture 64, 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persov, G.M. (1953). Quantite de sperme pour assurer la fecundation des oeufs d'essturgeon. Dokl. Akad. Nauk BSSR 90, 1183–6.Google Scholar
Redonodo, C.H., Hilge, V. & Billard, R. (1989). Artificial insemination of catfish (Silurus glanis, L.) European Aquaculture Society, Special Publication. 10, 211–2.Google Scholar
Suquet, M., Omens, M.H., Normant, Y. & Fauvel, C. (1992). Assessment of sperm concentration and motility in turbot (Scophthalmus maximus, L.) Aquaculture 101, 177–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suquet, M., Billard, R., Cosson, J., Normant, Y. & Fauvel, C. (1995). Artificial insemination in turbot. (Scophthalmus maximus): determination of the optimal sperm-to-egg ratio and time of gamete contact. Aquaculture 133, 83–90.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S.D. (1999). Present status of breeding and culture of catfishes in South Asia. Aquat. Living Resour. 9, 219–28.Google Scholar