Quality of boar spermatozoa from the sperm-peak portion of the ejaculate after simplified freezing in MiniFlatpacks compared to the remaining spermatozoa of the sperm-rich fraction, 2011 , THERIOGENOLOGY, (75), 7, 1175 -1184
AbstractBoar sperm viability post-thaw differs depending on the ejaculate fraction used, with spermatozoa present in the first 10mL of the sperm-rich fraction, SRF (portion 1, P1, sperm-peak portion), showing the best cryosurvival in vitro when compared with spermatozoa from the rest of the ejaculate (second portion of the SRF plus the post-spermatic fraction), even when using simplified freezing routines. Such abilities apparently relate to the specific composition of seminal plasma in the P1 (glycoproteins, pH, and bicarbonate concentrations). However, spermatozoa from P1 have not been compared to the rest of spermatozoa in the SRF (SRF-P1, usually 30 to 40 mL of the SRF), which is routinely used for freezing.Such comparison of P1 vs SRF-P1 was hereby done, in terms of sperm kinematics (QualiSperm TM system), membrane integrity (SYBR-14/PI), acrosome integrity (FITC PNA/PI), and sperm membrane stability (Annexin-V), explored using flow cytometry. As well, total protein concentration and the proteomics of the seminal plasma (SP) of either portion of the SRF were studied using two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE), mass fingerprinting (MALDI-TOF) and collision-induced dissociation tandem mass spectrometry (CID-MS/MS) of selected peptides. The SRF portions were weekly collected from four mature boars (4-5 replicates per boar, sperm concentration: P1-1.86±0.20, SRF-P1-1.25±0.14 ×10 9 spz/mL) and processed using a quick freezing method in MiniFlatPacks (MFP). Sperm motility post-thaw reached 50%, without differences between portions of the SRF, but with clear inter-boar variation. Neither did plasma membrane or acrosome integrity differ (ns) between fractions. These results indicate that there are no differences in cryosurvival after quick freezing of boar spermatozoa derived from either of the two portions of the SRF. While P1 and SRF-P1 clearly differed in relative total protein contents, as expected, they displayed very similar protein profiles as assessed by 2DE and mass spectrometry (tryptic peptide mass fingerprint analysis and CID-MS/MS), indicating a similar emission of epididymal protein content.3