Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39907872›Full record

ArticleFish physiology and biochemistry2025

Cryopreserved sperm does not affect larval ontogeny and quality in Rhamdia quelen.

Vanessa Conceição Coimbra, Jeane Rodrigues, Raquel Santos Dos Santos, Rômulo Batista Rodrigues, Danilo Streit-Jr, Ana Luiza de Souza Caldas, Eduardo Silva do Nascimento Albuquerque, Evagno Junior da Silva Ferreira, Caio Maximino, Diógenes Henrique de Siqueira-Silva

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Fish physiology and biochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Vanessa Conceição CoimbraGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Jeane RodriguesGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Raquel Santos Dos SantosGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Rômulo Batista RodriguesVeterinary Science Research Program, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil.
Danilo Streit-JrAQUAM (Aquatic Species Production and Conservation) at the Aquaculture Laboratory of the Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil.
Ana Luiza de Souza CaldasGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Eduardo Silva do Nascimento AlbuquerqueGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Evagno Junior da Silva FerreiraGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil.
Caio MaximinoNeuroscience and Behavior Laboratory Frederico Guilherme Graeff (LANEC), Institute of Healthy and Biologics Studies, Psychology University, Federal University of South and Southern of Pará, Av. Dos Ipês, Marabá, S/NPará, 68507-590, Brazil.
Diógenes Henrique de Siqueira-SilvaGroup of Studies On the Reproduction of Amazon Fish (GERPA/LaNeC), Biology Faculty (FACBIO), University Federal of South and Southern of Pará (Unifesspa), Marabá, Pará, Brazil. diogenessilva@unifesspa.edu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8569-474X

Funding

Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa 300189/2022-2Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 141717/2019-0Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 305387/2022-7Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 313053/2022-7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fish sperm cryopreservation is an important technique for optimizing juvenile production in aquaculture stations and laboratories and contributing to the conservation of endangered species. Despite its benefits, the cryopreservation process can cause cellular damage, affecting spermatozoa quality and offspring viability. This study aimed to evaluate the larval development of jundiá Rhamdia quelen originating from cryopreserved sperm. Larvae were obtained from artificial reproduction using oocyte samples from four females combined with fresh (Control) or cryopreserved/thawed sperm. The semen was diluted in the cryoprotective solution (1:3 ratio) consisting of skimmed milk powder (5%), methanol (10%), and fructose (5%), and was packaged into 0.25 mL straws. The straws were then stored and cooled in liquid nitrogen vapor for 18 h. The straws were individually warmed in a water bath at 25 °C for 10 s to thaw the samples. The experiments were performed in triplicates. Sperm quality, fertilization, hatching, and larval development were evaluated. After larval hatching, six larval collections were performed (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 days after hatching), and 15 larvae were sampled per collection per treatment. Cryopreservation reduced sperm motility (70.48 ± 7.70 fresh to 41.36 ± 4.80 cryopreserved semen), progressivity (3874 fresh to 2505 cryopreserved semen), and beat cross frequency (55.83 ± 155 fresh to 50.22 ± 190 cryopreserved semen). Increased the percentage of sperm with abnormal morphology and increased most sperm pathologies. Furthermore, the fertilization rate was lower in the cryopreserved group (63.1 ± 18, and 83.72 ± 7.59 for fresh semen), while hatching was not different between groups (65.3 ± 18.05 fresh, 48.89 ± 21.77 cryopreserved semen) Otherwise, the initial larval development morphology showed no difference in the appearance of structures such as the presence of the vitelline structure, pigmentation pattern, development of the anal pore, embryonic membrane, eye, barbells, notochord flexion, and fin rays, for both treatments. There was no significant difference in the frequency of structures between larvae from fresh and cryopreserved/thawed sperm, revealing a similar developmental pattern in both treatments. In conclusion, the cryopreservation protocol affects sperm quality; however, those sperm able to fertilize the oocytes originate normal larvae with regular larval development of R. quelen up to 25 days old.

Indexed as

CatfishesCryopreservationSemen PreservationSpermatozoaAnimalsCryoprotective AgentsFemaleLarvaMaleSperm MotilityCryoprotective AgentsAppearanceCryopreservationFish conservationLarval structuresMorphological description

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.