Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/51550
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBatista, M.
dc.contributor.authorSantana, M.
dc.contributor.authorNiño, T.
dc.contributor.authorAlamo, D.
dc.contributor.authorCabrera, F.
dc.contributor.authorGonzález, F.
dc.contributor.authorGracia, A.
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-25T01:36:35Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-25T01:36:35Z-
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0378-4320
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/51550-
dc.description.abstractThis study assessed the efficacy of a dry shipper to preserve canine and caprine semen samples. After equilibration, semen straws from six Majorera bucks and five dogs were frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen (LN). Thirty days after freezing, half of the frozen straws were transferred from LN to a dry shipper (DS). Then, thawing was performed at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 days and the percentages of motile spermatozoa, acrosome intact spermatozoa and abnormal spermatozoa were determined. The sperm motility (total and progressive) of canine semen samples preserved with DS was quite similar to those preserved in LN, and no significant differences were observed throughout the experimental period. In addition, no differences were observed in the number of abnormal spermatozoa (range: 13.2-19.0%) or intact acrosome (range 91.3-95%) between both storage protocols. Buck semen samples showed equivalent levels of progressive motility (between 50% and 60%) and intact acrosome membrane (around 70%) during the first 3 days of storage in both procedures: however, from the fifth day of storage onwards, a notable decrease in semen quality was observed in the samples preserved in DS, showing a dramatic fall in the semen viability after 7 days of preservation (12.3% and 36.8%, progressive fast spermatozoa and acrosome integrity, respectively). In dog samples, the present study confirmed that seminal quality did not show modifications for the preservation period (7 days), confirming the efficacy of the dry shipper to preserve frozen samples for a short time. However, under the circumstances reported in this study, the sperm quality of buck samples preserved in the dry shipper only held during the first 3 days of storage, and therefore, its practical application could be more limited. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
dc.publisher0378-4320
dc.relation.ispartofAnimal Reproduction Science
dc.sourceAnimal Reproduction Science[ISSN 0378-4320],v. 130, p. 105-110
dc.subject.otherArtificial-Insemination
dc.subject.otherDog Spermatozoa
dc.subject.otherLiquid-Nitrogen
dc.subject.otherIn-Vitro
dc.subject.otherChilled Semen
dc.subject.otherGoat Semen
dc.subject.otherCryopreservation
dc.subject.otherMotility
dc.subject.otherFrozen
dc.subject.otherConservation
dc.titleSperm viability of canine and caprine semen samples preserved in a dry shipper
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/Articlees
dc.typeArticlees
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.12.018
dc.identifier.scopus84856786684
dc.identifier.isi000301275400014
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6506315360
dc.contributor.authorscopusid35936129800
dc.contributor.authorscopusid23091540700
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6507009446
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7006639324
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57194243767
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7006185082
dc.description.lastpage110
dc.description.firstpage105
dc.relation.volume130
dc.type2Artículoes
dc.contributor.daisngid30341669
dc.contributor.daisngid746940
dc.contributor.daisngid2567189
dc.contributor.daisngid1791005
dc.contributor.daisngid18017708
dc.contributor.daisngid3001453
dc.contributor.daisngid7908263
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Batista, M
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Santana, M
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Nino, T
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Alamo, D
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Cabrera, F
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Gonzalez, F
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Gracia, A
dc.date.coverdateEnero 2012
dc.identifier.ulpgces
dc.description.sjr0,74
dc.description.jcr1,897
dc.description.sjrqQ1
dc.description.jcrqQ1
dc.description.scieSCIE
item.fulltextSin texto completo-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptGIR IUIBS: Medicina Veterinaria e Investigación Terapéutica-
crisitem.author.deptIU de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Patología Animal, Producción Animal, Bromatología y Tecnología de Los Alimentos-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Patología Animal, Producción Animal, Bromatología y Tecnología de Los Alimentos-
crisitem.author.deptGIR IUSA-ONEHEALTH 5: Reproducción Animal, Oncología y Anestesiología Comparadas-
crisitem.author.deptIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Patología Animal, Producción Animal, Bromatología y Tecnología de Los Alimentos-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-9753-4786-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.fullNameBatista Arteaga, Miguel-
crisitem.author.fullNameCabrera Martín, Fernando-
crisitem.author.fullNameGracia Molina, Anselmo-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Aug 7, 2022

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
checked on Aug 7, 2022

Page view(s)

14
checked on Jun 18, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.