Impact of cryopreservation and reactive oxygen species on DNA integrity, lipid peroxidation, and functional parameters in ram sperm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted reproduction using frozen-thawed semen has practical advantages, although cryopreservation is detrimental to sperm fertility in most mammals. We examined the influence of cryopreservation and reactive oxygen species (ROS) on ram sperm DNA stability (using SCSA), lipid peroxidation (LPO), chlortetracycline fluorescence (CTC) patterns, motility and viability. In Experiment 1, DNA integrity, LPO, CTC, motility and viability tests were performed on fresh and cryopreserved sperm after 0, 6, and 24 hr in synthetic oviductal fluid (SOF). In Experiment 2, fresh sperm were incubated in serum-free SOF (SOF-S; 1, 4, and 24 hr) with 0, 50, 150, or 300 microM H2O2 then assayed. Cryopreservation increased the percentage of sperm with a high DNA fragmentation index (%DFI), decreased the percentages of motile and viable sperm at thawing (0 hr), but did not affect LPO. H2O2 (150 or 300 microM) increased %DFI after 24 hr. LPO or sperm viability were not affected by H2O2, although most motility parameters decreased. H2O2 decreased the percentage of chlortetracycline pattern F sperm at 4 hr and increased the percentage of acrosome-reacted sperm (pattern AR) after 1 hr. Pooled data of Experiment 2 showed LPO was positively correlated with SCSA (r = 0.29 to r = 0.59; P < 0.05 to P < 0.01), while most motility parameters and the percentage of viable sperm were negatively correlated with LPO (r = -0.30 to r = -0.38; P < 0.05 to P < 0.01). LPO was positively correlated with the percentage of pattern AR sperm (r = 0.33; P < 0.01). Cryopreservation and H2O2 promote DNA instability in ram sperm, though motility is a more sensitive indicator of oxidative stress than the other parameters investigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".