No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Hypothermic storage at 5°C has been investigated as an alternative to promote the prudent use of antibiotics for boar artificial insemination doses. However, this temperature is challenging for some ejaculates or boars. Objective The present study aimed to identify putative biomarkers for semen resistance to hypothermic storage at 5°C by comparing the seminal plasma proteomes of boars with high and low seminal resistance to preservation at 5°C. Materials and methods From an initial group of 34 boars, 15 were selected based on the following criteria: ejaculate with ≤20% abnormal spermatozoa and at least 70% progressive motility at 120 hours of storage at 17°C. Then, based on the response to semen hypothermic storage at 5°C, boars were classified into two categories: high resistance—progressive motility of >75% in the three collections (n = 3); and low resistance—progressive motility of <75% in the three collections (n = 3). Seminal plasma proteins were analyzed in pools, and differential proteomics was performed using Multidimensional Protein Identification Technology. Results Progressive motility was lower at 120 hours of storage in low resistance, compared to high resistance boars (P < .05). Acrosome and plasma membrane integrity were not affected by the boar category, storage time, or their interaction (P ≥ .104). Sixty‐five proteins were considered for differential proteomics. Among the differentially expressed and exclusive proteins, the identification of proteins such cathepsin B, legumain, and cystatin B suggests significant changes in key enzymes (eg, metalloproteinases) involved in spermatogenesis, sperm integrity, and fertilizing potential. Discussion and Conclusion Differences in the seminal plasma suggest that proteins involved in the proteolytic activation of metalloproteinases and proteins related to immune response modulation could disrupt key cellular pathways during spermatogenesis and epididymal maturation, resulting in altered resistance to chilling injury. Further in vivo studies focusing on the immunological crosstalk between epithelial cells and gametes might explain how the immune regulators influence sperm resistance to hipothermic storage.

The study aimed to investigate the effect of oral protein-energy supplement (OPES) and/or extra colostrum within the first few hours of life on the survival and growth performance of low birth-weight piglets during the suckling period. Based upon nutritional strategy, low-birth-weight piglets (804−1309g) were randomly allocated into four groups: C0S0 (control group, n= 300) - no supplementation; C1S0 (n= 299) - supplementation with 50mL of a colostrum pool through an orogastric tube; C0S1 (n= 298) - oral supplementation with 8mL oral OPES; C1S1 (n= 297) - supplementation with both 50mL of colostrum and 8mL of OPES. The piglets’ body weight was monitored at birth, 24h after birth, on day 7, day 14 and day 20 post-partum. Both colostrum and protein-energy supplementations did not affect (P>0.05) colostrum intake (253.6g; 259.4g; 259.4g; 263.8g for C0S0, C1S0, C0S1, C1S1, respectively), weight gain during the first 24h (62.6g; 68.3g; 67.1g and 69.8g for C0S0, C1S0, C0S1, C1S1, respectively) and pre-weaning mortality (11.3%, 11.4%, 12.4% and 9.4% for C0S0, C1S0, C0S1, C1S1, respectively). Administration of OPES increased (P= 0.032) the average daily weight gain from birth till weaning (189.1 vs. 182.3g) and tended to increase the weight of the piglets (P= 0.060) at weaning (4893.1 vs. 4746.4g for OPES and no OPES, respectively). In conclusion, nutritional manipulation does not affect colostrum intake and pre-weaning mortality of low birth-weight piglets. However, body weight gain during the suckling period and the weight at weaning were observed to be marginally improved by administration of OPES.