Semen molecular and cellular features: these parameters can reliably predict subsequent ART outcome in a goat model

Semen molecular and cellular features: these parameters can reliably predict subsequent ART outcome in a goat model

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, November 2009

19900288

Fiammetta Berlinguer, Manuela Madeddu, Valeria Pasciu, Sara Succu, Antonio Spezzigu, Valentina Satta, Paolo Mereu, Giovanni G Leoni, Salvatore Naitana

Currently, the assessment of sperm function in a raw or processed semen sample is not able to reliably predict sperm ability to withstand freezing and thawing procedures and in vivo fertility and/or assisted reproductive biotechnologies (ART) outcome. The aim of the present study was to investigate which parameters among a battery of analyses could predict subsequent spermatozoa in vitro fertilization ability and hence blastocyst output in a goat model. Ejaculates were obtained by artificial vagina from 3 adult goats (Capra hircus) aged 2 years (A, B and C). In order to assess the predictive value of viability, computer assisted sperm analyzer (CASA) motility parameters and ATP intracellular concentration before and after thawing and of DNA integrity after thawing on subsequent embryo output after an in vitro fertility test, a logistic regression analysis was used. Individual differences in semen parameters were evident for semen viability after thawing and DNA integrity. Results of IVF test showed that spermatozoa collected from A and B lead to higher cleavage rates (0 < 0.01) and blastocysts output (p < 0.05) compared with C. Logistic regression analysis model explained a deviance of 72% (p < 0.0001), directly related with the mean percentage of rapid spermatozoa in fresh semen (p < 0.01), semen viability after thawing (p < 0.01), and with two of the three comet parameters considered, i.e tail DNA percentage and comet length (p < 0.0001). DNA integrity alone had a high predictive value on IVF outcome with frozen/thawed semen (deviance explained: 57%). The model proposed here represents one of the many possible ways to explain differences found in embryo output following IVF with different semen donors and may represent a useful tool to select the most suitable donors for semen cryopreservation.