Fertility assessment through heterospermic insemination of flow-sorted sperm in cattle

Combined effects of type and depth of counting chamber, and rate of image frame capture, on bull sperm motility and kinematics

Semen quality assessment requires accurate, reliable and objective methods for examination of sperm variables including sperm motility. For preparation of semen samples for artificial insemination, as a genetic resource, samples that are used for insemination need to have the capacity to result in a highly acceptable fertility rate. Several methods have been developed for evaluation of bull sperm in laboratory conditions and for preparation of doses for artificial insemination. Computer-assisted semen analyses can provide objective information on various sperm variables. Nevertheless, this equipment requires fine-calibrations considering differences among species, breeds and conditions for sample evaluation and data analyses. In the present study, there was examination of the interaction between factors such as image frame rate and type and depth of counting chamber in which sperm were evaluated, together with differences between bulls of four breeds. The use of the Spermtrack® reusable 10 μm-depth chamber provided more reliable results than results obtained using disposable chambers (10 and 20 μm depth). A capture rate of at least 90 fps is required for assessment of sperm motility percentage, whereas a rate of 250 fps is needed for obtaining consistent kinematic data. Differences among breeds in the present study indicate conditions for sperm analyses should include specific equipment calibrations for each breed. These results contribute to development of more precise conditions for assessments of bull sperm quality taking into account breed differences and the requirement each breed has for the adequate evaluation and preparation of samples for artificial insemination.

Review: Understanding the causes of variation in reproductive wastage among bulls

The ability to predict the fertility of bulls before semen is released into the field has been a long-term objective of the animal breeding industry. However, the recent shift in the dairy industry towards the intensive use of young genomically selected bulls has increased its urgency. Such bulls, which are often in the highest demand, are frequently only used intensively for one season and consequently there is limited time to track their field fertility. A more pressing issue is that they produce fewer sperm per ejaculate than mature bulls and therefore there is a need to reduce the sperm number per straw to the minimum required without a concomitant reduction in fertility. However, as individual bulls vary in the minimum number of sperm required to achieve their maximum fertility, this cannot be currently achieved without extensive field-testing. Although an in vitro semen quality test, or combination of tests, which can accurately and consistently determine a bull's fertility and the optimum sperm number required represent the 'holy grail' in terms of semen assessment, this has not been achieved to date. Understanding the underlying causes of variation in bull fertility is a key prerequisite to achieving this goal. In this review, we consider the reliability of sire conception rate estimates and then consider where along the pregnancy establishment axis the variation in reproductive loss between bulls occurs. We discuss the aetiology of these deficiencies in sperm function and propose avenues for future investigation.

In vitro competitive binding index using fluorochrome-labelled spermatozoa for predicting bull fertility

This work evaluated if an in vitro test, with the combined power of the statistical evaluation of spermatozoa and zona pellucida (ZP) competitive binding ability and a rapid method for accessory sperm counts, could predict the bull fertility. Ten Holstein Friesian bulls of known field fertility (five of high and five of low fertility) were selected. An in vitro heterospermic insemination approach, based on differential staining, was tested on 45 possible pairs of bulls (two batches per bull). Motility and quality (abnormalities and membrane status) seminal characteristics and estimated relative conception rates (ERCR) highlighted only one association between membrane integrity and ERCR (p = 0.007). Differences in ZP binding allowed us to rank bulls into two categories based on low and high binding ability. For eight bulls, this classification reflected the ERCR. Differences between batches were reported for two bulls, in which the effect of heterospermic insemination (the number of sperm binding to ZP from different bulls not in a 1:1 ratio) showed a significant bull-related effect (p < 0.001) in the first batch and no effect (p > 0.05) in the second batch for both bulls. Reduction of the number of oocytes per assay from 25 to 5 had no effect (p > 0.5) on the bulls’ ranking. Our results suggest that in vitro competitive binding is a promising approach for estimating bull fertility and support concepts for further implementation, e.g. drastic reduction of oocyte number in a single pair assay and larger scale testing for batches.

Weaknesses in reports of “fertility” for horses and other species

Apparent fertility of a male or group of females is considered frequently by veterinarians or animal scientists. Unfortunately, concepts of experimental design and statistics impacting validity and interpretation of values for average pregnancy rate frequently are ignored. The magnitude of this problem was documented by examination of published papers; 51 of 67 (76%) were considered flawed for one or more reasons. The discussion considers why: (a) conclusions from most published fertility studies reporting no significant difference due to treatment(s) are suspect, because too few males and/or females were used; (b) the experimental unit in an IVF study should be a droplet of co-incubating gametes rather than an ovum; (c) apparent fertility of a male is profoundly influenced by the range in actual fertility of the females with which he was mated, and thus might shift over a two- to three-fold range; and (d) scientists should refrain from conduct of studies destined to be inconclusive, and should be candid in reporting each fertility trial. It was emphasized that no fertility data were better than an imprecise average value for a given male or a conclusion based on an inadequate research study or incomplete report of what was done.