Comparative effectiveness of two extenders improves sperm quality in different goat breeds, suggesting tailored preservation strategies.
This study investigated the effects of two commercially available non-animal-derived extenders with different mechanisms of action on post-thaw spermatological characteristics in Boer and Anglo-Nubian goat breeds during the non-breeding season. Ejaculates were collected weekly from ten goats (Boer, n=5; Anglo-Nubian, n=5) over six replicates, with individual cryopreservation performed for each sample. Each ejaculate was divided into two aliquots: one diluted with soy lecithin-based AndroMed and the other with liposome-based OptiXcell prior to cryopreservation. Post-thaw assessment included Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA) for total and progressive motility (%) and kinematic parameters, while flow cytometry evaluated plasma membrane integrity, acrosome integrity, mitochondrial membrane potential, and quantified superoxide radicals to determine oxidative stress status. Results revealed that Anglo-Nubian samples exhibited comparable CASA and flow cytometry parameters between extenders (p>0.05). However, Boer samples demonstrated significantly higher total and progressive motility, as well as elevated VAP, VSL, VCL, ALH, and BCF values in the AndroMed-diluted group (p<0.05). Additionally, oxidative stress levels were significantly lower in Boer semen extended with AndroMed compared to OptiXcell (p<0.05). These results indicate breed-dependent extender efficacy, with AndroMed exhibiting superior performance in Boer goats while both extenders yielded equivalent outcomes in Anglo-Nubian goats. This breed-specific response pattern provides comparative evidence of differential breed responses to soy lecithin- and liposome-based extenders, directly supporting the need for breed-tailored semen preservation strategies. Consequently, these findings demonstrate that extender selection critically determines post-thaw sperm quality, confirming breed-specific compatibility as an essential criterion for optimal semen cryopreservation protocols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ESER et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: