The development of haddock and Atlantic cod sperm cryopreservation techniques and the effect of sperm age on cryopreservation success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three cryoprotectants [dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO), propylene glycol (PG) and glycerol], two diluents (sucrose‐ and saline‐based), two sperm collection times, two freezing rates and three times between thaw and activation (0, 30 and 60 min) were tested in order to develop a protocol for the cryopreservation of sperm of haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus and Atlantic cod Gadus morhua . The faster freezing rate resulted in extremely low post‐thaw motility in comparison to the slower freezing rate, which was successful for sperm from both gadids. In both cases, the use of PG resulted in significantly higher post‐thaw sperm motility‐recovery indices than with DMSO or glycerol, which did not differ significantly from one another. Diluent had no effect on post‐thaw sperm motility for Atlantic cod or haddock. Sperm collected at the end of the spawning season tended to have reduced post‐thaw motility compared to that collected 2 weeks after the start of spawning. A 30 min delay between thaw and activation of haddock and Atlantic cod sperm resulted in a significant decrease in sperm motility. When PG was used as cryoprotectant, sperm motility continued to decrease between 30 and 60 min post‐thaw. With DMSO or glycerol as cryoprotectant, motilities were already very low after 30 min post‐thaw and did not decrease any further after 60 min. Cryoprotectant, diluent and time between thaw and activation had no effect on mean or maximum sperm swimming speeds for either Atlantic cod or haddock sperm. Fertilization success for haddock eggs, like sperm motility, was higher with PG‐frozen sperm than DMSO‐ or glycerol‐frozen sperm. These results constitute the first reported successful cryopreservation of haddock sperm and improve on previous methods used to cryopreserve sperm from Atlantic cod.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".