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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |