Sperm DNA Fragmentation in Rams Vaccinated with Miloxan

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain
The Open Veterinary Science Journal 02/2008; 2(1). DOI: 10.2174/1874318800802010007

ABSTRACT Sperm DNA fragmentation was analysed in 113 semen samples obtained from different rams over a period of one year. Semen samples were collected from: unvaccinated rams between January and June (Control group 1; CG1); vaccinated rams at least 70 days after vaccination between October and December (Control group 2; CG2); vaccinated rams 20 days after vaccination (Vaccinated group 1; VG1); and vaccinated rams 40 days after vaccination (Vaccinated group 2; VG2). Results show Miloxan, the vaccine of interest in this study, increased the percentage of sperm cells with fragmented DNA by 10-fold on average (from 6.5±7.9 to 63.4±24.2). However, the negative impact of vaccination on sperm DNA fragmentation appeared to reversible; near normal levels of sperm DNA fragmentation had been restored 40 days after vaccination (21.7±10.6). On the basis of these data, the use of semen samples from vaccinated animals should be avoided until at least one month after vaccination.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: From a biological viewpoint spermatozoa are ejaculated by the male and received into the female while maintaining roughly constant temperature, which in most mammals is below the temperature of the soma. When ejaculated spermatozoa are used for artificial reproductive purposes a temperature excursion episode is produced, because the spermatozoa are often stored as frozen or chilled samples and the biological temperature is only recovered after insemination. In this study we have analyzed the effects of cooling (to 15°C) and freezing ram spermatozoa on the subsequent sperm DNA fragmentation index (sDFI) during a varying period of storage at 37°C. The aim was to emulate in vivo processes that cooled or frozen–thawed spermatozoa experience after insemination. The study was performed using commercial semen samples derived from rams regularly used for reproductive purposes. Semen samples were studied after a cooling or cryopreservation episode followed by biological temperature recovery and incubation up to 48h. The results indicated that when spermatozoa experience a severe (frozen) or mild (cooled) temperature excursion episode, major effects on sperm viability and DNA fragmentation are induced and cause the subsequent rapid decline of ram sperm quality. This effect could be detected just at the onset of the biological temperature recovery. Sperm DNA damage in cooled samples was observed after 5h of incubation at 37°C, while this time was reduced to less than 60min in frozen–thaw samples. The dynamics of sDFI in different animals, analyzed under the same experimental conditions, was different from one sample to another, regardless of the method used for storage. Sperm viability was better preserved in cooled rather than in frozen samples. While for the frozen–thawed samples sperm viability was almost abolished after 5h of incubation, a stable proportion of viable spermatozoa (ranging from 20% to 60%) was observed in the cooled samples at the corresponding time points. Finally, with respect to the prevalence of sDFI in ram, the level commonly found was lower than 5% at the onset of the experiment. However, sDFI was higher than 5% in 25% of the samples and in 15% of rams this index exceeded 10%.
    Theriogenology 01/2008; 70(6):898-908. · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Concentration, motility and morphology are parameters commonly used to determine the fertilization potential of an ejaculate. These parameters give a general view on the quality of sperm but do not provide information about one of the most important components of the reproductive outcome: DNA. Either single or double DNA strand breaks can set the difference between fertile and infertile males. Sperm DNA fragmentation can be caused by intrinsic factors like abortive apoptosis, deficiencies in recombination, protamine imbalances or oxidative stress. Damage can also occur due to extrinsic factors such as storage temperatures, extenders, handling conditions, time after ejaculation, infections and reaction to medicines or post-testicular oxidative stress, among others. Two singular characteristics differentiate sperm from somatic cells: Protamination and absence of DNA repair. DNA repair in sperm is terminated as transcription and translation stops post-spermiogenesis, so these cells have no mechanism to repair the damage occurred during their transit through the epididymis and post-ejaculation. Oocytes and early embryos have been shown to repair sperm DNA damage, so the effect of sperm DNA fragmentation depends on the combined effects of sperm chromatin damage and the capacity of the oocyte to repair it. In this contribution we review some of these issues.
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 12/2012; 13(11):14026-52. DOI:10.3390/ijms131114026 · 2.34 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sperm DNA fragmentation and its relationship to fertility is a topic of great interest, not only in humans but in all species, given the implicit role of the DNA molecule in producing a successful offspring with a genetic resemblances to the parental genomes. However, sperm DNA fragmentation is not easy, mainly because the evolutionary trends have shielded the genetic information to external factors that could affect the genetic message. The present study presents some open questions on different aspects of the sperm DNA fragmentation as an open debate about an exciting issue with a high practical interest. The following questions shall be addressed and discussed: what are the mechanisms that cause sperm DNA fragmentation? Is Sperm DNA fragmentation related to certain clinical conditions? What factors are increasing the level of sperm DNA fragmentation ? Which kind of damage it is expected on the sperm DNA? Is a distinction between “real” versus “potential” DNA damage possible?, What is most successful methodology for assessing sperm DNA fragmentation? Is it relevant to talk about “direct” and “indirect” methods for analyzing sperm DNA damage? What are the consequences for fertilization of different types of sperm DNA damage? Is it crucial to map the sperm DNA damage in coding or non-coding areas? Some questions directly related to the clinical applications have been addressed; is there a threshold level to achieve pregnancy and an “iceberg effect? Is fertility related to a known level of sperm DNA fragmentation? Are the results at clinic level supporting the assumptions about the sperm DNA fragmentation and fertility? Is sperm DNA fragmentation and static or a dynamic concept? And one obvious final question; is there a treatment to decrease the levels of sperm DNA fragmentation? One of the main aims of this review is to identify those aspects where each one of us need to act, in our day-to-day work, by seeking solutions which will bring us nearer to answering these questions and increasing general knowledge.
    Revista Internacional de Andrología 09/2008; 6(3). DOI:10.1016/S1698-031X(08)76145-4 · 0.22 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from