IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlvet/v53y2008i8id1928-vetmed.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vitrification of immature bubaline cumulus oocyte complexes by the open-pulled straw and conventional straw methods and their subsequent in vitro fertilization

Author

Listed:
  • A. Sharma

    (Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India)

  • G.N. Purohit

    (College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India)

Abstract

The in vitro maturation (IVM), fertilization (IVF) and morphological changes in buffalo cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) cryopreserved by ultra rapid freezing using conventional (CON) and open-pulled straw (OPS) methods were tested. COCs were cryopreserved using a vitrification solution comprising of DPBS + 0.5M sucrose + 0.4% BSA and two concentrations (4.5 or 5.5M) of each cryoprotectant ethylene glycol (EG) and dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) and cryopreserved by either CON or OPS method. Vitrified COCs were stored in LN2 for seven days and then thawed, and morphologically normal COCs were used for IVM (n = 864) and IVF (n = 933) in two separate experiments to record (1) morphological damage of COCs due to vitrification, (2) nuclear maturation 24 h after culture (nine replicates) and (3) fertilization 24 h after insemination (10 replicates). The COCs were matured in vitro in TCM-199 medium using hormone supplements and fertilized using TALP-BSA. Freshly collected COCs were separately used for IVM (n = 110) and IVF (n = 130) and kept as control. The arcsin transformed data of the proportion of COCs matured or fertilized was compared by DNMR test. The highest proportion of morphologically normal COCs were seen in 5.5M EG with CON method (94.5%) and the lowest were seen in 4.5M DMSO with OPS method (82.4%). At the end of Experiment 1, it was revealed that IVM in all vitrification groups was significantly lower (P < 0.05) compared to control (66.4%). Amongst the various vitrification treatments the highest IVM was seen in 5.5M EG with OPS method (39.2%) and the lowest in 4.5M DMSO with CON method (19.3%). Comparison of both concentrations of EG and DMSO showed that the proportion of COCs attaining metaphase-II (M-II) increased with increasing concentration of both the cryoprotectants. However, at equal concentration of EG and DMSO the proportion of COCs attaining M-II were significantly higher in OPS method compared to CON method. In Experiment 2, a significantly higher (P < 0.05) IVF was seen for fresh COCs (45.4%) compared to vitrified COCs. Amongst the vitrification treatments the highest fertilization was seen for 5.5M EG with the OPS method (33.6 %) and the lowest for the 4.5M DMSO with CON method (15.17%). A dose dependant increase in the proportion of oocytes fertilized was seen with increasing concentration of both EG and DMSO [CON: 4.5M (15.2%), 5.5M (25.6%), OPS: 4.5M (21.3%) and 5.5M (27.5%)] in both CON and OPS methods. Comparison of the two cryoprotectants revealed that EG was better compared to DMSO. At equal concentrations of EG or DMSO a significantly higher (P < 0.05) proportion of fertilized oocytes were seen in OPS method compared to the CON method. It was concluded that developmental capacity of vitrified buffalo COCs could be improved by using OPS in comparison to conventional straws.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Sharma & G.N. Purohit, 2008. "Vitrification of immature bubaline cumulus oocyte complexes by the open-pulled straw and conventional straw methods and their subsequent in vitro fertilization," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 53(8), pages 427-433.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:53:y:2008:i:8:id:1928-vetmed
    DOI: 10.17221/1928-VETMED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1928-VETMED.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1928-VETMED.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/1928-VETMED?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:53:y:2008:i:8:id:1928-vetmed. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.