MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595386866 · doi:10.1093/biolreprod/77.s1.107b

GIANT PANDA SPERM TOLERATE CRYOPRESERVATION AT RAPID FREEZING AND THAWING RATES

2007· article· en· W2595386866 on OpenAlexaff
Copper Aitken‐Palmer, Rong Hou, David E. Wildt, Mary Ann Ottinger, Rebecca Spindler, JoGayle Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsToronto Zoo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryopreservationBiologySpermAiluropoda melanoleucaArtificial inseminationDiluentAndrologySemenPopulationSperm motilityLiquid nitrogenInseminationAnimal scienceAnatomyEcologyEmbryoChemistryBotanyFisheryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many individuals in the ex situ giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) population do not reproduce, largely due to behavioral deficiencies. Artificial insemination is an important assisted breeding tool for genetically managing this species. To optimize sperm cryopreservation, this study compared three cryomethods and three thawing temperatures. Ejaculates (n = 28) from five adult (5.5 to 20.5 y) giant pandas were assessed for sperm traits, diluted in a TEST egg-yolk diluent containing 3.3% glycerol, cooled slowly to 5°C over 4 h, loaded in 0.25 ml straws and cryopreserved using a (1) manual two-step method, (2) automated Cryomed and (3) field-ready dry shipper. For the two-step method, samples were placed 7.5 cm above liquid nitrogen for 1 min (− 35°C/min), then 2.5 cm above liquid nitrogen for 1 min (− 100°C/min) before plunging. Using a programmable freezer (Forma Cryomed), sperm were frozen at − 40°C/min, then −100°C/min. For the field-ready method, samples were placed directly into a dry shipper for 10 min (− 35°C/min). Samples were thawed in a waterbath at (1) 22°C for 30 sec, (2) 37°C for 30 sec or (3) 50°C for 10 sec. Each aliquot then was diluted in Ham's F10 culture medium at 37°C and incubated for 24 h. Samples were assessed for sperm motility (0–100%), forward progression (scale, 0–5; 5 is best), intact acrosomes (0–100%) and longevity quotient (initial motility ÷ absolute gradient of motility decline over 24 h). Mean (± SEM) fresh ejaculate traits were: sperm motility, 83.2 ± 1.3%; forward progression, 4.0 ± 0.1; and intact acrosomes, 86.4 ± 1.4%. Cryomethod influenced (P < 0.05) giant panda sperm quality. Post-thaw sperm motility was similar (P > 0.05) among the two-step (65.7 ± 2.0%), dry shipper (61.1 ± 2.3%) and Cryomed (58.5 ± 2.4%). Sperm progression post-thaw also did not differ (P>0.05) among cryomethods (range, 3.0 to 3.3). Post-thaw intact acrosomes were highest (P < 0.05) in the two-step (53.0 ± 2.1%) and dry shipper (50.6 ± 2.4%) compared to the Cryomed (44.2 ± 2.5%). The longevity quotient was higher (P < 0.05) in the dry shipper (25.8 ± 3.1) than the Cryomed (16.7 ± 1.5), and both were similar (P > 0.05) to the two-step (21.5 ± 1.5). Thawing temperature also influenced (P < 0.05) giant panda sperm quality. Post-thaw sperm motility was higher (P < 0.05) when thawed at 50°C (67.5 ± 2.2%) compared to 22°C (56.7 ± 2.2%), and both were similar (P > 0.05) to 37°C (62.7 ± 2.2%). Sperm progression post-thaw was better (P < 0.05) in samples thawed at 50°C (3.4 ± 0.1) compared to 37°C (3.0 ± 0.1) or 22°C (3.0 ± 0.1). Thawing temperature had no influence (P > 0.05) on intact sperm acrosomes (range, 47.6% to 51.9%) or longevity quotients (range, 16.8 to 23.6). These data illustrate that optimal post thaw sperm quality in the giant panda is achieved with the manual two-step or dry shipper technique using a 50°C thawing temperature. This demonstrates that giant panda sperm can tolerate a rapid freezing rate (−35 to −100°C/min) in conjunction with a high thawing temperature (50°C). This finding suggests the possibility of successfully cryopreserving giant panda sperm in the field using the simple dry shipper technique. (Supported by the Morris Animal Foundation and the Friends of the National Zoo). (poster)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207