|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract
Methods routinely used to preserve mouse spermatozoa
require that the male be euthanized to recover spermatozoa
from the epididymides. Here we obtained multiple samples
of ejaculated spermatozoa from normal fertile C57BL/6 and
infertile Hook1/Hook1 (formerly known as
azh/azh) mutant males from uteri after mating, thus
avoiding terminating the males. Ejaculated sperm were
preserved by conventional cryopreservation or by rapid
freezing without cryoprotection, and injected into the
oocytes by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The
proportions of oocytes that survived, became activated,
and developed into two-cell embryos were similar when
comparing two preservation methods, wild-type vs.
Hook1/Hook1 mice, and tested mice vs. controls
(fresh and rapid frozen epididymal and fresh ejaculated
sperm). Two-cell embryos were transferred into the
oviducts of pseudo-pregnant females and fetal development
was examined at Day 15 of gestation. Thirty nine to 54% of
transferred embryos produced with preserved ejaculated
sperm implanted. Live, normal fetuses (11-17%) were
obtained in all examined groups and from all males
included in the study. More implants (71- 82%) and fetuses
(28-31%) were noted in controls. Lower developmental
potentials of embryos produced with preserved ejaculated
sperm might be due to their capacitation status; the
majority of sperm retrieved from the uterus were
capacitated. This study bears significance for the
maintenance and distribution of novel mouse strains. The
method is applicable for all types of mice, including
those with male infertility syndromes. The sole
requirement is that the male of interest is able to
copulate and its ejaculate contains spermatozoa.
Key words:
Embryo
Gamete Biology
Assisted Reproductive Technology
In vitro fertilization
Sperm
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Y. Yamauchi, A. Ajduk, J. M Riel, and M. A Ward Ejaculated and Epididymal Mouse Spermatozoa Are Different in Their Susceptibility to Nuclease-Dependent DNA Damage and in Their Nuclease Activity Biol Reprod, October 1, 2007; 77(4): 636 - 647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |