Cargando…

Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa

The use of microfluidics in artificial reproductive technologies for manipulation or assessment of spermatozoa is unique in the sense that it is not always an end point measurement and the sample may be used afterward. During microfluidic processing, spermatozoa are exposed to shear stress, which ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamacher, Tanja, Berendsen, Johanna T. W., Kruit, Stella A., Broekhuijse, Marleen L. W. J., Segerink, Loes I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AIP Publishing LLC 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32774586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0013919
_version_ 1783566804710326272
author Hamacher, Tanja
Berendsen, Johanna T. W.
Kruit, Stella A.
Broekhuijse, Marleen L. W. J.
Segerink, Loes I.
author_facet Hamacher, Tanja
Berendsen, Johanna T. W.
Kruit, Stella A.
Broekhuijse, Marleen L. W. J.
Segerink, Loes I.
author_sort Hamacher, Tanja
collection PubMed
description The use of microfluidics in artificial reproductive technologies for manipulation or assessment of spermatozoa is unique in the sense that it is not always an end point measurement and the sample may be used afterward. During microfluidic processing, spermatozoa are exposed to shear stress, which may harm viability and functioning of spermatozoa. The shear stresses during general microfluidic processing steps were calculated and compared to estimated shear stresses during ejaculation. The viability of boar and bull spermatozoa after microfluidic processing was studied and compared to the typical handling method (centrifugation) and to a control (the sample in a tube at the same temperature). The boar spermatozoa showed a small but significant decrease in viability of 6% after microfluidic handling. Bull spermatozoa proved to be less susceptible to shear stress and were not significantly affected by microfluidic processing. These data indicate that the impact of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa is less than the literature values reported for flow cytometry and comparable to the impact of centrifugation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7402706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AIP Publishing LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74027062020-08-07 Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa Hamacher, Tanja Berendsen, Johanna T. W. Kruit, Stella A. Broekhuijse, Marleen L. W. J. Segerink, Loes I. Biomicrofluidics Regular Articles The use of microfluidics in artificial reproductive technologies for manipulation or assessment of spermatozoa is unique in the sense that it is not always an end point measurement and the sample may be used afterward. During microfluidic processing, spermatozoa are exposed to shear stress, which may harm viability and functioning of spermatozoa. The shear stresses during general microfluidic processing steps were calculated and compared to estimated shear stresses during ejaculation. The viability of boar and bull spermatozoa after microfluidic processing was studied and compared to the typical handling method (centrifugation) and to a control (the sample in a tube at the same temperature). The boar spermatozoa showed a small but significant decrease in viability of 6% after microfluidic handling. Bull spermatozoa proved to be less susceptible to shear stress and were not significantly affected by microfluidic processing. These data indicate that the impact of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa is less than the literature values reported for flow cytometry and comparable to the impact of centrifugation. AIP Publishing LLC 2020-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7402706/ /pubmed/32774586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0013919 Text en © 2020 Author(s). 1932-1058/2020/14(4)/044111/8 All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Articles
Hamacher, Tanja
Berendsen, Johanna T. W.
Kruit, Stella A.
Broekhuijse, Marleen L. W. J.
Segerink, Loes I.
Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title_full Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title_fullStr Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title_full_unstemmed Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title_short Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
title_sort effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa
topic Regular Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32774586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0013919
work_keys_str_mv AT hamachertanja effectofmicrofluidicprocessingontheviabilityofboarandbullspermatozoa
AT berendsenjohannatw effectofmicrofluidicprocessingontheviabilityofboarandbullspermatozoa
AT kruitstellaa effectofmicrofluidicprocessingontheviabilityofboarandbullspermatozoa
AT broekhuijsemarleenlwj effectofmicrofluidicprocessingontheviabilityofboarandbullspermatozoa
AT segerinkloesi effectofmicrofluidicprocessingontheviabilityofboarandbullspermatozoa