spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online March 30, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 1560-1572 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02136
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Satake, N.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, W. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Satake, N.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, W. V.

Sperm selection and competition in pigs may be mediated by the differential motility activation and suppression of sperm subpopulations within the oviduct

Nana Satake1,2, Roslyn M. A. Elliott1, Paul F. Watson2 and William V. Holt1,*

1 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
2 Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU, UK

* Author for correspondence (e-mail: bill.holt{at}ioz.ac.uk)

Accepted 31 January 2006

When spermatozoa from two or more boars are mixed and females inseminated, the resulting litters are often skewed in favour of one male but there is currently no satisfactory physiological explanation for this effect. However, to reach the oocytes, the spermatozoa must enter the oviduct where they are exposed to factors that modulate their activity. They either become sequestered within the oviductal sperm reservoir or bypass the reservoir and proceed towards the oocytes. The oviduct may therefore hold the key to mammalian sperm selection, thereby explaining why laboratory tests of sperm function, performed on whole ejaculates, are unable to account for the boar-specific skewing effects. We have previously shown that boar sperm motility is highly stimulated by bicarbonate, a naturally abundant component of oviductal fluid. Using motility-based sperm subpopulation analysis, we show here that the relative sizes of bicarbonate-responsive and unresponsive sperm subpopulations vary between individual boars. Proteins derived from oviduct epithelial plasma membranes suppress the activation response and modify sperm movement trajectories in a subpopulation-specific and dose-dependent manner. The suppression response varies between boars and some spermatozoa remain unsuppressed in the presence of oviductal proteins. When boars are ranked according to their susceptibility to bicarbonate-induced stimulation, rankings differ depending upon the presence or absence of oviductal proteins. The suppression response is not caused by inhibition of bicarbonate uptake; on the contrary this is enhanced by oviductal proteins. We suggest that the boar-specific and sperm subpopulation-specific interactions between sperm motility activation and suppression responses are likely to result in sperm selection before the spermatozoa meet the oocytes.

Key words: bicarbonate, sperm motility, sperm transport, intracellular pH, fallopian tube




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ReproductionHome page
A M Petrunkina, D Waberski, A R Gunzel-Apel, and E Topfer-Petersen
Determinants of sperm quality and fertility in domestic species
Reproduction, July 1, 2007; 134(1): 3 - 17.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J AndrolHome page
N. S. Prathalingam, P. F. Watson, S. G. Revell, J. Busby, and W. V. Holt
The Response of Bovine Spermatozoa to Bicarbonate and Its Use to Assess the Influence of Added Oviductal Epithelial Proteins on Cryopreservation
J Androl, May 1, 2007; 28(3): 407 - 415.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006