Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25938413›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

A novel approach to identifying physical markers of cryo-damage in bull spermatozoa.

Sung-Jae Yoon, Woo-Sung Kwon, Md Saidur Rahman, June-Sub Lee, Myung-Geol Pang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Molecular Markers: A New Paradigm in the Prediction of Sperm Freezability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Effect of Cooling and Freezing on Llama (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sung-Jae YoonDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, 456-756, Republic of Korea.
Woo-Sung KwonDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, 456-756, Republic of Korea.
Md Saidur RahmanDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, 456-756, Republic of Korea.
June-Sub LeeDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, 456-756, Republic of Korea.
Myung-Geol PangDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, 456-756, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryopreservation is an efficient way to store spermatozoa and plays a critical role in the livestock industry as well as in clinical practice. During cryopreservation, cryo-stress causes substantial damage to spermatozoa. In present study, the effects of cryo-stress at various cryopreservation steps, such as dilution / cooling, adding cryoprtectant, and freezing were studied in spermatozoa collected from 9 individual bull testes. The motility (%), motion kinematics, capacitation status, mitochondrial activity, and viability of bovine spermatozoa at each step of the cryopreservation process were assessed using computer-assisted sperm analysis, Hoechst 33258/chlortetracycline fluorescence, rhodamine 123 staining, and hypo-osmotic swelling test, respectively. The results demonstrate that the cryopreservation steps reduced motility (%), rapid speed (%), and mitochondrial activity, whereas medium/slow speed (%), and the acrosome reaction were increased (P < 0.05). Differences (Δ) of the acrosome reaction were higher in dilution/cooling step (P < 0.05), whereas differences (Δ) of motility, rapid speed, and non-progressive motility were higher in cryoprotectant and freezing as compared to dilution/cooling (P < 0.05). On the other hand, differences (Δ) of mitochondrial activity, viability, and progressive motility were higher in freezing step (P < 0.05) while the difference (Δ) of the acrosome reaction was higher in dilution/cooling (P < 0.05). Based on these results, we propose that freezing / thawing steps are the most critical in cryopreservation and may provide a logical ground of understanding on the cryo-damage. Moreover, these sperm parameters might be used as physical markers of sperm cryo-damage.

Indexed as

CryopreservationSemen PreservationAcrosome ReactionAnimalsBiomarkersCattleFlow CytometryMaleMitochondriaSemen AnalysisSpermatozoaSperm MotilityBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25938413
PMCPMC4418755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.