Effects of Different Concentrations of Escherichia coli and Days of Preservation on Boar Sperm Quality

  • Received : 2013.12.02
  • Accepted : 2013.12.23
  • Published : 2013.12.31


The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of bacterial contamination on elapsed time after preservation on boar semen. Known numbers of Escherichia coli (E. coli) were inoculated to freshly ejaculated semen and sperm parameters such as viability, motility, agglutination, acrosome integrity and hypo-osmotic swelling test were performed during 7 days of liquid preservation. Semen samples were prepared using antibiotic free BTS extender and 4 different levels of E. coli were treated to semen with following concentrations; 3,000, 5,000, 7,000, 10,000 CFU/ml of sperms. Semen samples were preserved at $17^{\circ}C$ for 7 days in semen storage until analyzed. Aliquots were subjected to measure the sperm viability, motility and agglutination using computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system, acrosome integrity was performed using chlortetracycline (CTC) staining method and hypo-osmotic swelling test was performed using hypotonic solution from day 1 (day of semen collection) to 7. Detrimental effects on sperm motility and viability were observed 3 days after preservation at the level of 5,000 CFU/ml (p<0.05). Percentage of sperm abnormality was higher (p<0.05) in over 5,000 CFU/ml groups. Sperm agglutination rate was also significantly higher (p<0.05) in groups of 5,000 and 7,000 CFU/ml. The rate of acrosome reacted sperm was higher as preservation time goes in all the samples but the pattern was clearly higher among E. coli contaminated groups (p<0.05). The sperm membrane integrity in terms of hypo-osmotic test, E. coli affects little compared to other sperm parameters. The deleterious effects observed due to the bacterial contamination in semen suggest that importance of hygiene protocol to minimize the bacterial contamination during semen collection and processing.


Grant : Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development

Supported by : Rural Development Administration


  1. 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.
  2. Althouse GC, Lu KG (2005): Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 63:573-58
  3. Althouse GC (2008): Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 43(Suppl. 2):374-378.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepúveda 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.
  7. Dagnall GJR (1986): An investigation of the bacterial flora of the preputial diverticulum and of the semen of boars. M.Ph. Thesis. Royal Veterinary Co llege, Hertfordshire.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Jung JA, Park MH, Park BS, Kim HY, Byun JW, Jeon AB, Chung KH, So KM, Jung BY (2011): Prevelence of bacteria contaminated in boar semen. Korean J Vet Sci(suppl). 51(3):60.
  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.
  12. Kim IC, Sa SJ, Kang K, Kim SH, Bae SJ, Kim DS, Kim SJ, Min CS, Son JH, Chung KH (2011): Current status of swine artificial insemination(AI) in Korea. Reprod Dev Biol 35(3):227-232.
  13. 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.
  14. 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, pp293-295.
  15. Lee, HT (2007): Effects of storage time on bacteria concentration and sperm parameters in boar semen. Jinju National Industrial College, Master's Thesis, p20.
  16. Maroto Martí LO, Munoz EC, Cupere FD, Driessche EV, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodríuez JM, Beeckmans S (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Ani Reprod Sci 120:95-104.
  17. OIE (2001): Terrestrial animal health code. Chapter 4.6. Collection and processing of porcine semen. http://
  18. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 9.3. (2000): SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
  19. 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.
  20. Storey BT (1997): Biochemistry of the induction and prevention of lipoperoxidative damage in human spermatozoa. Mol Hum Reprod 3:203-213.
  21. Tamuli MK, Sharma DK, Rajkonwar CK (1984): Studies on the microbial flora of boar semen. Indian Vet J 61:858-861.
  22. Zeng WX, Terada T (2001): Protection of boar spermatozoa from cold shock damage by 2-hydroxypropyl- beta-cyclodextrin. Theriogenology 55:615-627.