Theriogenology
Volume 74, Issue 8 , Pages 1420-1430, November 2010

Comparison of sperm quality and DNA integrity in mouse sperm exposed to various cooling velocities and osmotic stress

  • Cengiz Yildiz

      Affiliations

    • Physiology and Experimental Medicine Research Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
    • Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
    • Department of Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mustafa Kemal, Hatay, Turkey
  • ,
  • Napoleon Law

      Affiliations

    • Physiology and Experimental Medicine Research Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
  • ,
  • Palma Ottaviani

      Affiliations

    • Physiology and Experimental Medicine Research Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
  • ,
  • Keith Jarvi

      Affiliations

    • Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X6
  • ,
  • Colin McKerlie

      Affiliations

    • Physiology and Experimental Medicine Research Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
    • Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 647-837-5840; fax: +1 647-837-5834

Received 16 July 2009; received in revised form 23 April 2010; accepted 10 June 2010. published online 23 August 2010.

Abstract 

The first objective was to compare sperm quality following conventional manual sperm freezing (cryovials held 1, 2, 3, and 4 cm, respectively, above liquid nitrogen (LN2) for 10 min, resulting in cooling velocities of approximately −14.9, −10.1, −6.6, and −5.1 °C/min, respectively), and cooling velocities of −5, −20, −40, and −100 °C/min in a programmed automated freezer, for sperm recovered from CD-1, B6129SF1, and C57BL/6NCrlBR mice. Furthermore, using these strains, as well as 129S/SvPaslco, and DBA/2NCrlBR mice, the second objective was to determine the effects on DNA integrity of sperm exposed to hyposmotic (1 mOsm/L) and hyperosmotic (2400 mOsm/L) solutions, compared to an isosmotic control (300 mOsm/L). For freezing above LN2 or in an automated freezer, 2 cm above LN2 and −100 °C/min, respectively, were optimal (P < 0.05–0.01), with no significant differences between these two approaches for post-thaw progressive motility, DNA integrity, and in vitro rates of fertilization and blastocyst formation. Both manual and automated freezing techniques increased post-thaw sperm DNA fragmentation (P < 0.01); the DNA integrity of post-thaw sperm was significantly affected by cooling velocity and strain background. Relative to isosmotic controls, a hyposmotic solution was more deleterious (P < 0.05–0.01) to sperm DNA integrity than a hyperosmotic solution for CD-1, B6129SF1, C57BL/6, and DBA mice (there were strain-dependent differences). In conclusion, optimization of freezing distance and cooling velocity (manual and automated freezing, respectively) were significant factors for efficient cryopreservation and re-derivation of mice from frozen-thawed sperm. Additionally, osmotically-driven volume changes in mouse sperm increased DNA fragmentation, with susceptibility affected by background strain.

Keywords: Sperm, Embryo, Cryopreservation, DNA integrity, In vitro fertilization, Mouse

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0093-691X(10)00331-6

doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.06.014

Theriogenology
Volume 74, Issue 8 , Pages 1420-1430, November 2010