Bacterial contamination of boar semen and its relationship to sperm quality preserved in commercial extender containing gentamicin sulfate

• Autorzy: Gaczarzewicz D. , Udala J. , Piasecka M. , Blaszczyk B. , Stankiewicz T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study was designed to determine the degree and type of bacterial contamination in boar semen (79 ejaculates from Large White and Landrace boars) and its consequences for sperm quality during storage (27 extended semen samples, 16°C for five days) under practical conditions of artificial insemination (AI). The results revealed the presence of aerobic bacteria in 99% of the ejaculates (from 80 to 370 ×106 colony-forming units/mL). Most of the ejaculates contained two or three bacterial contaminants, while the Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Pseudomonas bacterial genera were most frequently isolated. Also detected were Enterobacter spp., Bacillus spp., Proteus spp., Escherichia coli, P. fluorescens, and P. aeruginosa. In general, the growth of certain bacterial types isolated prior to semen processing (Enterobacter spp., E. coli, P. fluorescens, and P. aeruginosa) was not discovered on different days of storage, but fluctuations (with a tendency towards increases) were found in the frequencies of Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Staphylococcus spp. isolates up to the end of storage. Semen preserved for five days exhibited decreases in sperm motility and increases in the average number of total aerobic bacteria; this was associated with sperm agglutination, plasma membrane disruption, and acrosome damage. We inferred that, due to the different degrees and types of bacterial contaminants in the boar ejaculates, the inhibitory activity of some antimicrobial agents used in swine extenders (such as gentamicin sulfate) may be limited. Because such agents can contribute to the overgrowth of certain aerobic bacteria and a reduction in the quality of stored semen, procedures with high standards of hygiene and microbiological control should be used when processing boar semen.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 19
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.451-459,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Gaczarzewicz D.

• Department of Animal Reproduction, Biotechnology, and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Breeding, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Doktora Judyma 6, 71-466 Szczecin, Poland

autor

Udala J.

• Department of Animal Reproduction, Biotechnology, and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Breeding, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Doktora Judyma 6, 71-466 Szczecin, Poland

autor

Piasecka M.

• Department of Histology and Developmental Biology, Pomeranian Medical University, Zolnierska 48, 71-210 Szczecin, Poland

autor

Blaszczyk B.

• Department of Animal Reproduction, Biotechnology, and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Breeding, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Doktora Judyma 6, 71-466 Szczecin, Poland

autor

Stankiewicz T.

• Department of Animal Reproduction, Biotechnology, and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Breeding, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Doktora Judyma 6, 71-466 Szczecin, Poland

Bibliografia

• Althouse GC (2008) Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 43 (Suppl. 2): 374-378.
• Althouse GC, Kuster CE, Clark SG, Weisiger RM (2000) Field investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 53: 1167-1176.
• Althouse GC, Lu KG (2005) Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 63: 573-584.
• Althouse GC, Pierdon MS, Lu KG (2008) Thermotemporal dynamics of contaminant bacteria and antimicrobials in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 70: 1317-1323.
• Aurich C, Spergser J (2007) Influence of bacteria and gentamicin on cooled-stored stallion spermatozoa. Theriogenology 67: 912-918.
• Baracaldo M, Ward J (2008) Quality control of extended boar semen. In: Murphy JM, de Lange CF (ed) Proceedings of the London Swine Conference – Facing the Now Reality. 1-2 April 2008, London, Ontario, pp 195-206.
• Bresciani C, Cabassi CS, Morini G, Taddei S, Bettini R, Bigliardi E, Di Ianni F, Sabbioni A, Parmigiani E (2014) Boar semen bacterial contamination in Italy and antibiotic efficacy in a modified extender. Ital J Anim Sci 13: 83-87.
• Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepu´lveda L, Torner E, Pinart E, Bonet S (2011) Effects of different concentrations of enterotoxigenic and verotoxigenic E. coli on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci 127: 176-182.
• Dalin AM, Kaeoket K, Persson E (2004) Immune cell infiltration of normal and impaired sow endometrium. Anim Reprod Sci 82-83: 401-413.
• Gączarzewicz D, Piasecka M, Udała J, Błaszczyk B, Stankiewicz T, Laszczyńska M (2010) Plasma membrane changes during the liquid storage of boar spermatozoa: a comparison of methods. Acta Vet Hung 58: 105-116.
• Gączarzewicz D, Udała J, Piasecka M, Błaszczyk B, Stankiewicz T (2015) Storage temperature of boar semen and its relationship to changes in sperm plasma membrane integrity, mitochondrial membrane potential, and oxidoreductive capability. Turk J Biol 39: 582-594.
• Goldberg AM, Argenti LE, Faccin JE, Linck L, Santi M, Bernardi ML, Cardoso MR, Wentz I, Bortolozzo FP (2013) Risk factors for bacterial contamination during boar semen collection. Res Vet Sci 95: 362-367.
• Kuster CE, Althouse GC (2016) The impact of bacteriospermia on boar sperm storage and reproductive performance. Theriogenology 85: 21-26.
• Maes D, Nauwynck H, Rijsselaere T, Mateusen B, Vyt P, de Kruif A, Van Soom A (2008) Diseases in swine transmitted by artificial insemination: an overview. Theriogenology 70: 1337-1345.
• Maroto Martın LO, Munñoz EC, De Cupere F, Van Driessche E, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodrıguez JM, Beeckmans S (2010) Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Anim Reprod Sci 120: 95-104.
• Morrell JM, Wallgren M (2011) Removal of bacteria from boar ejaculates by Single Layer Centrifugation can reduce the use of antibiotics in semen extenders. Anim Reprod Sci 123: 64-69.
• Morrell JM, WallgrenM (2014) Alternatives to antibiotics in semen extenders: a review. Pathogens 3: 934-946.
• Okazaki T, Mihara T, Fujita Y, Yoshida S, Teshima H, Shimada M (2010) Polymyxin B neutralizes bacteria-released endotoxin and improves the quality of boar sperm during liquid storage and cryopreservation. Theriogenology 74: 1691-1700.
• Prieto-Martınez N, Bussalleu E, Garcia-Bonavila E, Bonet S, Yeste M (2014) Effects of Enterobacter cloacae on boar sperm quality during liquid storage at 17oC. Anim Reprod Sci 148: 72-82.
• Reicks DL, Levis DG (2008) Fertility of semen used in commercial production and the impact of sperm numbers and bacterial counts. Theriogenology 70: 1377-1379.
• Sa SJ, Choi SH, Kim HJ, Cho KH, Hong JK, Kim DW, Kim YH, Park JC, Chung KH (2014) Effect of different inoculation concentration of Escherichia coli on boar sperm quality and reproductive performance in sow. Reprod Dev Biol 38: 159-163.
• Schulze M, Ammon C, Rudiger K, Jung M, Grobbel M (2015) Analysis of hygienic critical control points in boar semen production. Theriogenology 83: 430-437.
• Sepúlveda L, Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Bonet S (2014) Effects of different concentrations of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci 150: 96-106.
• Sepúlveda L, Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Torner E, Bonet S (2013) How do different concentrations of Clostridium perfringens affect the quality of extended boar spermatozoa? Anim Reprod Sci 140: 83-91.
• Speck S, Courtiol A, Junkes C, Dathe M, Müller K, Schulze M (2014) Cationic synthetic peptides: assessment of their antimicrobial potency in liquid preserved boar semen. PLoS One 9: e105949.
• Úbeda JL, Ausejo R, Dahmani Y, Falceto MV, Usan A, Malo C, Perez-Martinez FC (2013) Adverse effects of members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on boar sperm quality. Theriogenology 80: 565-570.
• Vyt P, Maes D, Dejonckheere E, Castryck F, Van Soom A (2004) Comparative study on five different commercial extenders for boar semen. Reprod Domest Anim 39: 8-12.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/pjvs-2016-0057