Review: Sperm cryopreservation in wild small ruminants: morphometric, endocrine and molecular basis of cryoresistance.

Reproductive technologies can help to protect wild ruminant species from becoming extinct. In addition, the decline in some wild game species has also raised interest in reproductive technologies to increase the number of animals that can be produced. Most biobanking efforts have focused on developing effective protocols for preserving sperm, oocytes, and embryos. Cryopreservation of sperm remains the least invasive method and the cheapest procedure for germplasm storage. Over the last few years, several reproductive biotechnologies have been developed beyond the conventional freezing of spermatozoa. These include ultra-rapid freezing techniques. Nevertheless, fertility results after artificial insemination using frozen-thawed spermatozoa are not always acceptable in wild small ruminants. Moreover, these technological efforts have met variable success related to the sample's origin (epididymal retrieved postmortem or ejaculated) and the season of sperm sample collection and storage. Epididymal sperm shows higher cryoresistance than ejaculated sperm. Changes in sperm proteome between epididymal and ejaculated sperm seem to contribute to this different cryotolerance. The role of endocrine status has been studied in some wild species to better understand the underlying mechanism of the annual variation in ruminant sperm cryoresistance. Seasonal changes in testosterone and prolactin are involved in sperm cryoresistance; sperm recovery and cryopreservation are recommended around the end of the rutting season, when good quality sperm samples can still be obtained, testosterone levels have already decreased, and prolactin concentrations remain low. The mechanisms of hormone action on sperm freezability are not well known. Still, it has been suggested that testosterone affects cell proliferation in the testis, during spermatogenesis, and membrane properties of sperm cells during their transit through the reproductive tract, which might influence their cryotolerance. Recent studies have revealed that the expression of aquaporins in the sperm cells of small wild ruminants could also be involved in the androgen-related seasonal variation of sperm cryoresistance. Along with epididymal and ejaculated spermatozoa, the cryopreservation of testicular tissue may provide a suitable source of male gametes, becoming an alternative for establishing germplasm banks when semen cannot be collected for whatever reason.

Cryopreservation of testicular tissue from the dog (Canis familiaris) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) by slow freezing and vitrification: Differences in cryoresistance according to cell type.

Sperm cryopreservation is the most common procedure used to establish germplasm banks for endangered species - but sometimes sperm cells cannot be obtained. In such cases, freezing testicular tissue may be the only option. The testes contains germ cells at different stages of differentiation, including spermatogonia, primary spermatocytes, secondary spermatocytes, spermatids, and spermatozoa, among which differences in cryoresistance might be expected. The present work compares the viability and DNA integrity of 'rounded' cells, and of elongated spermatids and spermatozoa, from the dog and wild boar, following the cryopreservation of testicular tissue by slow freezing or vitrification. Cell viability was analyzed by PI/SYBR14 staining, and DNA integrity via the TUNEL technique. For wild boar, no significant differences were seen between the two methods with respect to the percentage of viable cells, nor in the percentage of cells with DNA damage. In the dog, the percentage of viable rounded germ cells (65.0 ± 2.4%) was higher (P < 0.05) after vitrification than after slow freezing (45.1 ± 6.7%). No difference was found between the two methods in terms of the viability of elongated cells. For rounded cells, the percentage of intact DNA was greater (P < 0.05) after vitrification (90.5 ± 2.1%) than after slow freezing (42.6 ± 11.0%), while for elongated spermatids and spermatozoa it was higher (P < 0.05) after slow freezing (66.9 ± 6.1%) than after vitrification (50.7 ± 4.5%). Thus, the response to cryopreservation is cell type-, cryopreservation type-, and species-dependent. Vitrification would appear to be the most appropriate method for preserving dog testicular tissue given the associated high cell viability and low degree of DNA fragmentation, while in wild boar, either method might be used.