Reproductive and Developmental Biology

The Korean Society of Animal Reproduction (한국동물번식학회)
권호 표지

Effects of Escherichia coli Contamination on Extended Porcine Semen Parameters

  • So, Kyoung-Min (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Sa, Soo-Jin (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Hyo-Jin (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Chung, Ki-Hwa (Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jung, Byeong-Yeal (Animal Disease Diagnostic Division, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine & Inspection Agency) ;
  • Son, Jung-Ho (Noah Biotech. Inc.) ;
  • Kim, In-Cheul (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
  • Received : 2011.11.19
  • Accepted : 2011.11.29
  • Published : 2011.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of E. coli isolated from porcine semen on sperm viability, motility, and semen pH. Semen samples were prepared using commercial extender, $Seminark^{Pro}$ (Noahbio Tech, Korea) that did not contain antibiotics. And 4 different levels of E. coli were artificially innoculated to semen with following concentrations; 4,000 of sperms with 1 of E. coli (T1), 400 with 1 (T2), 40 with 1 (T3), and 4 with 1 (T4). Semen samples were preserved at $17^{\circ}C$ for 5 days in semen storage box until analyzed by flowcytometer. Aliquots were subjected to measure the sperm viability (Live/$Dead^{(R)}$ stain), motility (mitochondrial function), and semen acidity (pH) from day 0 (day of semen collection) to day 5. Sperm motility and viability were significantly decreased (p<0.05) on day 0 (4 hrs after preservation at $17^{\circ}C$) in T3 and T4 compared to control groups and were significantly decreased (p<0.05) in all groups from day 3. Sample pH was acidic in T3 (6.90~6.86) and T4 (6.86~6.65) from day 3 to day 5 (p<0.05). On the other hand, sample pH was maintained 7.0~7.1 in control, T1, and T2 during the experimental period. Sperm motility and viability were significantly decreased from day 0 to day 5 compared to control in samples contaminated with E. coli above a value of 40:1 ($20{\times}10^6$ sperm cells/ml : $5{\times}10^5$ cfu/ml). Even on day 1 in T4 and on day 3 in T3, semen pH was acidic probably due to the acidification of dead spermatozoa. These results suggest that E. coli contamination has a concentration-dependent detrimental effect on extended porcine semen quality.

Keywords

References

  1. Althouse GC (2008): Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 43(Suppl. 2):374-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01187.x
  2. Althouse GC, Lu KG (2005): Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 63:573-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.031
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00261-2
  4. Alvarez JG, Storey BT (1983): Role of superoxide dismutase in protecting rabbit spermatozoa from O2 toxicity due to lipid peroxidation. Biol Reprod 28: 1129-1136. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod28.5.1129
  5. Arredondo C, Fernandez A, Lazo L, Cruz E, Machado J (2001): Bacteriological studies of swine semen. Preliminar evaluation of the effect of Escherichia coli lectins on spermagglutination. Rev Cub Sal Animal 23:73-79.
  6. Auroux MR, Jacques L, Mathieu D, Auer J (1991): Is the sperm bacterial ratio a determining factor in impairment of sperm motility: an in vitro study in man with Escherichia coli. Int J Androl 14:264-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.1991.tb01091.x
  7. Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepúlveda L, Torner E, Pinart E, Bonet S (2011): Effects of different concentrations of enterotoxigenic and verotoxigenic E. coli on boar sperm quality. Ani Reprod Sci 127:176-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.07.018
  8. Dagnall GJR (1986): An investigation of the bacterial flora of the preputial diverticulum and of the semen of boars. M.Ph. Thesis. Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire.
  9. Diemer T, Huwe P, Ludwig M, Schroeder-Printzen I, Michelmann HW, Schiefer HG, Weidner W (2003): Influence of autogenous leucocytes and Escherichia coli on sperm motility parameters in vitro. Andrologia 35:100-105. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0272.2003.00523.x
  10. Flowers WL (1996): Common issues associated with on-farm A.I. use. Proc. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference. University of Minnesota, US, pp 69-73.
  11. Kaur M, Tripathi KK, Bansal MR, Jain PK, Gupta KG (1986): Bacteriology of cervix in cases of infertility: Effect on human sperm. Am J Reprod Immunol Microbiol 12:21-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.1986.tb00055.x
  12. Kozdrowski R, Staroniewiez Z, Dubiel A (2005): Bacterial flora of semen of wild boar and their hybrids with domestic pig. Elect J Polish Agric Universities 8(2) #8.
  13. Kuster CE, Althouse GC (1997): Sperm agglutination of extended semen caused by gentamicin resistant bacteria. In: Proceedings of the 28th American Association of Swine Practitioners Meeting, pp 293-295.
  14. Maroto Martín LO, Munoz EC, Cupere FD, Driessche EV, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodríguez JM, Beeckmans S (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Ani Reprod Sci 120:95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.008
  15. Monga M, Roberts JA (1994): Spermagglutination by bacteria: receptor-specific interactions. J Androl 15:151-156.
  16. OIE, 2001. Semen de bovinos. Codigo Zoosanitario Internacional. Parte 3. Titulo 3.2. Anexo 3.2.1. Disponible de: http://www.oie.int.
  17. Sone M, Kawarasaki T, Ogasa A, Nahara T (1989): Effects of bacteria- contaminated boar semen on the reproductive performance. Jpn J Anim Reprod 35 (3): 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd1977.35.159
  18. Storey BT (1997): Biochemistry of the induction and prevention of lipoperoxidative damage in human spermatozoa. Mol Hum Reprod 3:203-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/3.3.203
  19. Tamuli MK, Sharma DK, Rajkonwar CK (1984): Studies on the microbial flora of boar semen. Indian Vet J 61:858-861.
  20. In Cheul Kim, Soo Jin Sa, Kwon Kang, Sang Hyun Kim, Sang Jong Bae, Dae Sil Kim, Si Joo Kim, Chan Sik Min, Jung Ho Son and Ki Hwa Chung (2011): Current Status of Swine Artificial Insemination(AI) in Korea. Reprod Dev Biol 35(3):227-232