Effect of select lipids and vitamin E on motility and viability of liquid and cryopreserved boar spermatozoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to test the ability of membrane-incorporated lipid and antioxidant constituents to improve boar spermatozoa function, particularly after cryopreservation. In exp. 1, fresh boar spermatozoa (one ejaculate from each of five boars) was incubated at 37°C in Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS) + select lipids with 0 (SL), 1 or 5% vitamin E (SL + E1% or E5%). The fluorescent indicator octadecyl rhodamine (R-18) was included to monitor fusion by flow cytometry. Spermatozoa fused more readily to SL or SL + E1% than SL + E5% (86%a vs. 89%a vs. 77%b, respectively; a, b differ, P < 0.005). In exp. 2, fresh boar spermatozoa (one ejaculate from each of four boars) was incubated with BTS buffer alone (control), or BTS with SL, SL + E1% or SL + E5%, omitting the R-18 dye, and held at 18 °C for 7 d. Overall, viability (measured with SYBR-14/PI) was higher in SL + E (59%a vs. 51%a vs. 69%b vs. 67%b for control, SL, SL + E1%, and SL + E5%, respectively; a, b differ, P < 0.035). Both SL and SL ± E1% increased the percentage of motile spermatozoa (total and progressive) after 3 h of storage (P < 0.05); all treatments had similar motility by 24 h, and 0% motility by 96 h. In exp. 3, boar spermatozoa (three ejaculates from each of three boars) was cryopreserved in BTS (control), SL or SL + E1% using a BF5 extender. Initially at 37° C, SL + E1% increased motility, while viability was similar for all treatments. Spermatozoa fused with SL + E1% had the most motile spermatozoa when cooled to 5°C during processing and after freezing and thawing (P < 0.05); the percentage of viable spermatozoa was similar among treatments. In conclusion, incorporation of SL + E1% into spermatozoa membranes improves motility and/or viability of preserved boar spermatozoa. Key words: Freezing, á tocopherol, swine, membranes
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".