Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen

Conventional centrifugation protocols result in important sperm losses during removal of the supernatant. In this study, the effect of centrifugation force (400 or 900 × g), duration (5 or 10 min), and column height (20 or 40 mL; Experiment 1); sperm concentration (25, 50, and 100 × 10⁶/mL; Experime...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Theriogenology 2012-11, Vol.78 (8), p.1814-1823
Hauptverfasser: Ferrer, M.S, Lyle, S.K, Eilts, B.E, Eljarrah, A.H, Paccamonti, D.L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1823
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1814
container_title Theriogenology
container_volume 78
creator Ferrer, M.S
Lyle, S.K
Eilts, B.E
Eljarrah, A.H
Paccamonti, D.L
description Conventional centrifugation protocols result in important sperm losses during removal of the supernatant. In this study, the effect of centrifugation force (400 or 900 × g), duration (5 or 10 min), and column height (20 or 40 mL; Experiment 1); sperm concentration (25, 50, and 100 × 10⁶/mL; Experiment 2), and centrifugation medium (EZ-Mixin CST [Animal Reproduction Systems, Chino, CA, USA], INRA96 [IMV Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA], or VMDZ [Partnar Animal Health, Port Huron, MI, USA]; Experiment 3) on sperm recovery and survival after centrifugation and cooling and storage were evaluated. Overall, sperm survival was not affected by the combination of centrifugation protocol and cooling. Total sperm yield was highest after centrifugation for 10 min at 400 × g in 20-mL columns (95.6 ± 5%, mean ± SD) or 900 × g in 20-mL (99.2 ± 0.8%) or 40-mL (91.4 ± 4.5%) columns, and at 900 × g for 5 min in 20-mL columns (93.8 ± 8.9%; P < 0.0001). Total (TMY) and progressively motile sperm yield followed a similar pattern (P < 0.0001). Sperm yields were not significantly different among samples centrifuged at various sperm concentrations. However, centrifugation at 100 × 10⁶/mL resulted in significantly lower total sperm yield (83.8 ± 10.7%) and TMY (81.7 ± 6.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. Centrifugation in VMDZ resulted in significantly lower TMY (69.3 ± 22.6%), progressively motile sperm yield (63.5 ± 18.2%), viable yield (60.9 ± 36.5%), and survival of progressively motile sperm after cooling (21 ± 10.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. In conclusion, centrifuging volumes of ≤ 20 mL minimized sperm losses with conventional protocols. With 40-mL columns, it may be recommended to increase the centrifugal force to 900 × g for 10 min and dilute the semen to a sperm concentration of 25 to 50 × 10⁶/mL in a milk- or fractionated milk-based medium. The semen extender VMDZ did not seem well suited for centrifugation of equine semen.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.07.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1112340193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0093691X12004116</els_id><sourcerecordid>1112340193</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-2074061fdd4299641fb75fd5df29ccd22d4d715881b5ad669f7594a88e3c91a23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkcGKFDEQhoMo7rj6CtoHD166TSXdnQ54kcVRYcGDLuwtZJJKm6G7M5ukB-btzTCr4EU81aG--qv4ipC3QBug0L_fN_knRh9GXMIUxlPDKLCGioYCPCEbGISsOePwlGwolbzuJdxfkRcp7SmlvO_hObliTIqOcbYh91ttcoip0s6hyX4Zq3TAOFcRTThiPFVRZyztxVZpjUd_1FNhM8bK4JKjd-uosw9LFVyFD6tfsEo44_KSPHN6SvjqsV6Tu-2nHzdf6ttvn7_efLytTTsMuWZUtLQHZ23LpOxbcDvROdtZx6QxljHbWgHdMMCu07bvpROdbPUwIDcSNOPX5N0l9xDDw4opq9kng9OkFwxrUgDAeEtB8oJ-uKAmhpQiOnWIftbxpICqs1u1V3-7VWe3igpV3Jbx14-b1t2M9s_wb5kFeHMBnA5Kj9Endfe9JLRn8QJa-U8CBgm0ENsLgcXZ0WNUyXhcDFpfPpKVDf7_rv0Fq-GnEg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1112340193</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ferrer, M.S ; Lyle, S.K ; Eilts, B.E ; Eljarrah, A.H ; Paccamonti, D.L</creator><creatorcontrib>Ferrer, M.S ; Lyle, S.K ; Eilts, B.E ; Eljarrah, A.H ; Paccamonti, D.L</creatorcontrib><description>Conventional centrifugation protocols result in important sperm losses during removal of the supernatant. In this study, the effect of centrifugation force (400 or 900 × g), duration (5 or 10 min), and column height (20 or 40 mL; Experiment 1); sperm concentration (25, 50, and 100 × 10⁶/mL; Experiment 2), and centrifugation medium (EZ-Mixin CST [Animal Reproduction Systems, Chino, CA, USA], INRA96 [IMV Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA], or VMDZ [Partnar Animal Health, Port Huron, MI, USA]; Experiment 3) on sperm recovery and survival after centrifugation and cooling and storage were evaluated. Overall, sperm survival was not affected by the combination of centrifugation protocol and cooling. Total sperm yield was highest after centrifugation for 10 min at 400 × g in 20-mL columns (95.6 ± 5%, mean ± SD) or 900 × g in 20-mL (99.2 ± 0.8%) or 40-mL (91.4 ± 4.5%) columns, and at 900 × g for 5 min in 20-mL columns (93.8 ± 8.9%; P &lt; 0.0001). Total (TMY) and progressively motile sperm yield followed a similar pattern (P &lt; 0.0001). Sperm yields were not significantly different among samples centrifuged at various sperm concentrations. However, centrifugation at 100 × 10⁶/mL resulted in significantly lower total sperm yield (83.8 ± 10.7%) and TMY (81.7 ± 6.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. Centrifugation in VMDZ resulted in significantly lower TMY (69.3 ± 22.6%), progressively motile sperm yield (63.5 ± 18.2%), viable yield (60.9 ± 36.5%), and survival of progressively motile sperm after cooling (21 ± 10.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. In conclusion, centrifuging volumes of ≤ 20 mL minimized sperm losses with conventional protocols. With 40-mL columns, it may be recommended to increase the centrifugal force to 900 × g for 10 min and dilute the semen to a sperm concentration of 25 to 50 × 10⁶/mL in a milk- or fractionated milk-based medium. The semen extender VMDZ did not seem well suited for centrifugation of equine semen.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-691X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.07.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22975232</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Cell Survival ; Centrifugation ; Centrifugation - adverse effects ; Centrifugation - methods ; Centrifugation - veterinary ; cooling ; Cryoprotective Agents ; Horse ; Horses ; Male ; semen ; Semen - cytology ; Semen - physiology ; Semen Preservation - methods ; Semen Preservation - veterinary ; Semen processing ; sperm concentration ; Sperm Count ; Sperm Motility ; Sperm viability ; spermatozoa ; Spermatozoa - physiology ; Stallion semen</subject><ispartof>Theriogenology, 2012-11, Vol.78 (8), p.1814-1823</ispartof><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-2074061fdd4299641fb75fd5df29ccd22d4d715881b5ad669f7594a88e3c91a23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-2074061fdd4299641fb75fd5df29ccd22d4d715881b5ad669f7594a88e3c91a23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093691X12004116$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22975232$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ferrer, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyle, S.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eilts, B.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eljarrah, A.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paccamonti, D.L</creatorcontrib><title>Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen</title><title>Theriogenology</title><addtitle>Theriogenology</addtitle><description>Conventional centrifugation protocols result in important sperm losses during removal of the supernatant. In this study, the effect of centrifugation force (400 or 900 × g), duration (5 or 10 min), and column height (20 or 40 mL; Experiment 1); sperm concentration (25, 50, and 100 × 10⁶/mL; Experiment 2), and centrifugation medium (EZ-Mixin CST [Animal Reproduction Systems, Chino, CA, USA], INRA96 [IMV Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA], or VMDZ [Partnar Animal Health, Port Huron, MI, USA]; Experiment 3) on sperm recovery and survival after centrifugation and cooling and storage were evaluated. Overall, sperm survival was not affected by the combination of centrifugation protocol and cooling. Total sperm yield was highest after centrifugation for 10 min at 400 × g in 20-mL columns (95.6 ± 5%, mean ± SD) or 900 × g in 20-mL (99.2 ± 0.8%) or 40-mL (91.4 ± 4.5%) columns, and at 900 × g for 5 min in 20-mL columns (93.8 ± 8.9%; P &lt; 0.0001). Total (TMY) and progressively motile sperm yield followed a similar pattern (P &lt; 0.0001). Sperm yields were not significantly different among samples centrifuged at various sperm concentrations. However, centrifugation at 100 × 10⁶/mL resulted in significantly lower total sperm yield (83.8 ± 10.7%) and TMY (81.7 ± 6.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. Centrifugation in VMDZ resulted in significantly lower TMY (69.3 ± 22.6%), progressively motile sperm yield (63.5 ± 18.2%), viable yield (60.9 ± 36.5%), and survival of progressively motile sperm after cooling (21 ± 10.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. In conclusion, centrifuging volumes of ≤ 20 mL minimized sperm losses with conventional protocols. With 40-mL columns, it may be recommended to increase the centrifugal force to 900 × g for 10 min and dilute the semen to a sperm concentration of 25 to 50 × 10⁶/mL in a milk- or fractionated milk-based medium. The semen extender VMDZ did not seem well suited for centrifugation of equine semen.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cell Survival</subject><subject>Centrifugation</subject><subject>Centrifugation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Centrifugation - methods</subject><subject>Centrifugation - veterinary</subject><subject>cooling</subject><subject>Cryoprotective Agents</subject><subject>Horse</subject><subject>Horses</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>semen</subject><subject>Semen - cytology</subject><subject>Semen - physiology</subject><subject>Semen Preservation - methods</subject><subject>Semen Preservation - veterinary</subject><subject>Semen processing</subject><subject>sperm concentration</subject><subject>Sperm Count</subject><subject>Sperm Motility</subject><subject>Sperm viability</subject><subject>spermatozoa</subject><subject>Spermatozoa - physiology</subject><subject>Stallion semen</subject><issn>0093-691X</issn><issn>1879-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkcGKFDEQhoMo7rj6CtoHD166TSXdnQ54kcVRYcGDLuwtZJJKm6G7M5ukB-btzTCr4EU81aG--qv4ipC3QBug0L_fN_knRh9GXMIUxlPDKLCGioYCPCEbGISsOePwlGwolbzuJdxfkRcp7SmlvO_hObliTIqOcbYh91ttcoip0s6hyX4Zq3TAOFcRTThiPFVRZyztxVZpjUd_1FNhM8bK4JKjd-uosw9LFVyFD6tfsEo44_KSPHN6SvjqsV6Tu-2nHzdf6ttvn7_efLytTTsMuWZUtLQHZ23LpOxbcDvROdtZx6QxljHbWgHdMMCu07bvpROdbPUwIDcSNOPX5N0l9xDDw4opq9kng9OkFwxrUgDAeEtB8oJ-uKAmhpQiOnWIftbxpICqs1u1V3-7VWe3igpV3Jbx14-b1t2M9s_wb5kFeHMBnA5Kj9Endfe9JLRn8QJa-U8CBgm0ENsLgcXZ0WNUyXhcDFpfPpKVDf7_rv0Fq-GnEg</recordid><startdate>20121101</startdate><enddate>20121101</enddate><creator>Ferrer, M.S</creator><creator>Lyle, S.K</creator><creator>Eilts, B.E</creator><creator>Eljarrah, A.H</creator><creator>Paccamonti, D.L</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121101</creationdate><title>Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen</title><author>Ferrer, M.S ; Lyle, S.K ; Eilts, B.E ; Eljarrah, A.H ; Paccamonti, D.L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-2074061fdd4299641fb75fd5df29ccd22d4d715881b5ad669f7594a88e3c91a23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cell Survival</topic><topic>Centrifugation</topic><topic>Centrifugation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Centrifugation - methods</topic><topic>Centrifugation - veterinary</topic><topic>cooling</topic><topic>Cryoprotective Agents</topic><topic>Horse</topic><topic>Horses</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>semen</topic><topic>Semen - cytology</topic><topic>Semen - physiology</topic><topic>Semen Preservation - methods</topic><topic>Semen Preservation - veterinary</topic><topic>Semen processing</topic><topic>sperm concentration</topic><topic>Sperm Count</topic><topic>Sperm Motility</topic><topic>Sperm viability</topic><topic>spermatozoa</topic><topic>Spermatozoa - physiology</topic><topic>Stallion semen</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferrer, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyle, S.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eilts, B.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eljarrah, A.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paccamonti, D.L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Theriogenology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ferrer, M.S</au><au>Lyle, S.K</au><au>Eilts, B.E</au><au>Eljarrah, A.H</au><au>Paccamonti, D.L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen</atitle><jtitle>Theriogenology</jtitle><addtitle>Theriogenology</addtitle><date>2012-11-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1814</spage><epage>1823</epage><pages>1814-1823</pages><issn>0093-691X</issn><eissn>1879-3231</eissn><abstract>Conventional centrifugation protocols result in important sperm losses during removal of the supernatant. In this study, the effect of centrifugation force (400 or 900 × g), duration (5 or 10 min), and column height (20 or 40 mL; Experiment 1); sperm concentration (25, 50, and 100 × 10⁶/mL; Experiment 2), and centrifugation medium (EZ-Mixin CST [Animal Reproduction Systems, Chino, CA, USA], INRA96 [IMV Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA], or VMDZ [Partnar Animal Health, Port Huron, MI, USA]; Experiment 3) on sperm recovery and survival after centrifugation and cooling and storage were evaluated. Overall, sperm survival was not affected by the combination of centrifugation protocol and cooling. Total sperm yield was highest after centrifugation for 10 min at 400 × g in 20-mL columns (95.6 ± 5%, mean ± SD) or 900 × g in 20-mL (99.2 ± 0.8%) or 40-mL (91.4 ± 4.5%) columns, and at 900 × g for 5 min in 20-mL columns (93.8 ± 8.9%; P &lt; 0.0001). Total (TMY) and progressively motile sperm yield followed a similar pattern (P &lt; 0.0001). Sperm yields were not significantly different among samples centrifuged at various sperm concentrations. However, centrifugation at 100 × 10⁶/mL resulted in significantly lower total sperm yield (83.8 ± 10.7%) and TMY (81.7 ± 6.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. Centrifugation in VMDZ resulted in significantly lower TMY (69.3 ± 22.6%), progressively motile sperm yield (63.5 ± 18.2%), viable yield (60.9 ± 36.5%), and survival of progressively motile sperm after cooling (21 ± 10.8%) compared with noncentrifuged semen. In conclusion, centrifuging volumes of ≤ 20 mL minimized sperm losses with conventional protocols. With 40-mL columns, it may be recommended to increase the centrifugal force to 900 × g for 10 min and dilute the semen to a sperm concentration of 25 to 50 × 10⁶/mL in a milk- or fractionated milk-based medium. The semen extender VMDZ did not seem well suited for centrifugation of equine semen.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22975232</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.07.011</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0093-691X
ispartof Theriogenology, 2012-11, Vol.78 (8), p.1814-1823
issn 0093-691X
1879-3231
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1112340193
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Animals
Cell Survival
Centrifugation
Centrifugation - adverse effects
Centrifugation - methods
Centrifugation - veterinary
cooling
Cryoprotective Agents
Horse
Horses
Male
semen
Semen - cytology
Semen - physiology
Semen Preservation - methods
Semen Preservation - veterinary
Semen processing
sperm concentration
Sperm Count
Sperm Motility
Sperm viability
spermatozoa
Spermatozoa - physiology
Stallion semen
title Factors affecting sperm recovery rates and survival after centrifugation of equine semen
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T23%3A25%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Factors%20affecting%20sperm%20recovery%20rates%20and%20survival%20after%20centrifugation%20of%20equine%20semen&rft.jtitle=Theriogenology&rft.au=Ferrer,%20M.S&rft.date=2012-11-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1814&rft.epage=1823&rft.pages=1814-1823&rft.issn=0093-691X&rft.eissn=1879-3231&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.07.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1112340193%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1112340193&rft_id=info:pmid/22975232&rft_els_id=S0093691X12004116&rfr_iscdi=true