Effects of filtration through Sephadex columns improve overall quality parameters and “ in vivo” fertility of subfertile refrigerated boar-semen

• Published in: Animal reproduction science 2009-10, Vol.115 (1), p.189-200
• Main Authors: Ramió-Lluch, L., Balasch, S., Bonet, S., Briz, M., Pinart, E., Rodríguez-Gil, J.E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: acrosome; Animals; assisted reproductive technologies; Boar-sperm; boars; Cell Survival; chromatography; Chromatography, Gel - methods; Ejaculation; Estrus; Female; Fertility - physiology; filtration; germplasm conservation; Infertility - physiopathology; Infertility - therapy; Infertility - veterinary; Insemination, Artificial - veterinary; Male; male fertility; osmotolerance; Pregnancy; protective effect; refrigeration; resins; semen; Semen - cytology; Semen - physiology; Semen quality; Sephadex filtration; sperm motility; spermatozoa; Spermatozoa - cytology; Swine; Swine Diseases - physiopathology; velocity; viability
• ISSN: 0378-4320; 1873-2232
• DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.12.015

This study was performed to test the effects of filtration through several chromatographic resins on the semen quality parameters (percentages of viability, altered acrosomes and morphological abnormalities, motion characteristicis and the response to the Osmotic Resistance Test) of boar ejaculates of poor quality. Our results indicate that filtration through a non-ionic Sephadex resin bed (Sephadex G-15), combined with a glasswool subjection bed, induced an overall improvement of semen quality parameters, especially seen in a significant ( P < 0.05) decrease in the percentages of morphological abnormalities and an increase of several motility parameters related to velocity and linearity. Similar results, although less intense, were observed when the filtration through G-15 resin was accompanied by an ionically neutral polypropylene disk bed instead of glasswool. On the other hand, filtration through two separate ion-exchange Sephadex resins, cationic C-50 and anionic A-50, have less beneficial, and even detrimental, effects on boar-semen quality. In all cases, filtration was accompanied by a significant ( P < 0.01) decrease in the final concentration of the samples. Ultrastructural and lectin studies showed that the interaction between sperm and chromatographic resins depends on the resin type utilized, and in the case of G-15 it seems that it works by trapping that sperm with not enough strength to overcome the physical resistance associated with chromatographic particles. When semen of poor quality was filtered through G-15 resin and then was utilized for “ in vivo” fertility trials, a significant ( P < 0.05) increase in the percentage of fertility was observed, when compared with the same, but unfiltered, samples. In summary, our results strongly indicate that filtration through ionically inert, Sephadex chromatographic resins could be a very useful and practical method to improve both boar-semen quality and fertilizing ability, especially from mediocre and/or subfertile samples.