Sperm Sex-Sorting: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
Contributor:
Andra Sabina Neculai-Valeanu

The utilization of sex-sorted sperm for artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization is considered a valuable tool for improving production efficiency and optimizing reproductive management in farm animals, subsequently ensuring sufficient food resource for the growing human population. 

  • sperm
  • sex-sorting
  • animal breeding
  • nanotechnology
  • microfluidics

1. Overview of the Sex-Sorting Importance

The preselection of semen based on the sex chromosome is a commonly used biotechnology in the animal livestock industry for obtaining offspring of a desired sex; it is important for improving animal breeding efficiency and providing sustainable milk and beef production for the human population, being well accounted for by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The utilization of sex-sorted semen is becoming more and more popular all around the world, among farmers, mainly due to the numerous advantages it may bring. Besides extending the size of herds faster, in a more cost-effective manner, potential bio-security threats may be avoided [1][2][3].

Globally, the cattle-breeding industry has benefited from the use of this technology in both intensive and pasture-based systems [4][5][6][7][8]. For example, in dairy cows, female calves are essential to increase productivity, while male calves have a lower economic value. The higher value of female calves and the reduced risk of dystocia are two other powerful economic factors for reducing the number of male calves raised in the dairy industry. According to a study conducted by Seidel (2003) [9], dystocia may be reduced to up 20% when sex-sorted semen is used for artificial insemination (AI). Another study carried out by Norman et al. (2010) [10] found that using sexed semen reduced dystocia risks in heifers by 28%, respectively by 64% in cows. This finding may be due to the fact that a heifer, on average, is 2 kg lighter in weight at birth as compared to male calves [9]. The male-to-female ratio is really not precisely 1:1, since many variables, including nutrition, may alter it. Garner and Seidel (2008) [11] showed that the usual sex ratio for artificial insemination is around 51% male, with older cows producing 53% male offspring. Therefore, specific and efficient reproductive technology for sperm sex-sorting would be immensely helpful for the dairy sector. In contrast, in beef farms, male calves are those whose economic value makes a difference [12][13]. There is also interest in other species, such as equines, as well, for the use of sex-sorting semen [14]. Sex-sorted semen may be used to ensure rare equine breeds survive or for commercial purposes, especially in those breeds where a particular sex is required [15].

In horse polo and the Arabian Horse Show, females are favored over males because they are considered to be more agile and easier to train. In the swine industry, for example, female piglets may be preferred, since, this way, the costs associated with male castration are reduced [16]. The routine use of sex-sorted sperm in AI-programs will provide the swine industry with a whole new dimension.

Other emergent livestock industries, such as the donkey-milk industry, may benefit from this biotechnology in order to meet the increased market demand for jenny milk. Donkey milk has long been used as a substitute for children and patients with cow’s milk protein allergy, owing to its resemblance to human milk and low allergenic potential. In contrast to other types of milk conventionally used for human feeding, donkey milk has some superior biochemical and nutraceutical qualities [17][18]

This biotechnology may bring a genetic and economic boost in the sheep and goat industry, too [19]. Furthermore, sex-sorted semen has proven to be of great help in the programs designed for endangered species by improving the quality of the genetic bank resources (semen and embryos) [20][21][22][23][24].

In the case of animals, this biotechnology was implemented for the economic and genetic benefits it may bring, but the use of sex-sorting semen in human-assisted reproduction raised, as foreseen, many ethical controversies, which is why the use of sex-sorting technologies for family-balancing is prohibited in many countries [25][26][27]. For medical reasons, such as the prevention of sex-linked genetic disorders, embryo sex-selection using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is accepted. However, if the sperm is not sex-sorted prior to IVF, there is a chance of not obtaining embryos suitable for transfer, and the ones that cannot be transfer must be discharged. Thus, sex-sorting combined with IVF and PGT may increase the chances of obtaining a healthy offspring and even reduce the costs associated with IVF and PGT.

Despite the fact that sperm sex-sorting is one of the most intense studied technologies and notable progress have been made in the past three decades to optimize it, the conception rates when using sex-sorted semen are still under expectations [28][29]. Assisted-reproduction programs may benefit from the use of emergent technologies, such as nanotechnologies and microfluidics.

2. Conventional Approach—Flow Cytometry Sorting

Over the years, several different methods for sperm separation have been described, based on the various differences between Y- and X-bearing sperm, such as shape and size, ration, motility pattern, and surface charge. The reliability of some of the approaches has been doubted, primarily due to poor reproducibility and precision. One such example is the multiple gradient centrifugation, a method routinely used in human and animal assisted reproduction for the selection of sperm populations with specific characteristics, such as high chromatin integrity and improved motility and viability [30][31], as well as retrieval of spermatozoa form semen ejaculates [32][33][34]. Several authors used this method in combination with the swim-up technique for the separation of X- and Y-bearing sperm populations in different species, but the results were rather contradicting. The approach is based on the fact that during gradient centrifugation, the X-chromosome carrying spermatozoa will settle at the bottom of the column, due to the higher density of these cells and the Y chromosome bearing spermatozoa remains in high proportion at the top of the column. While some authors considered the multiple gradient centrifugation, using colloids such as Percoll, Bovipure or PureSperm, a useful tool for the enrichment of semen with X-bearing spermatozoa [35][36][37][38][39], others concluded that, although this method may slightly enrich X- or Y-bearing spermatozoa, the differences are insignificant and, implicitly, the method cannot be routinely used for sex-sorting semen [35][40][41][42][43][44].

Presently, the only effective sperm-sorting system is flow cytometry, a high-speed analysis tool for the counting and sorting of cells. This technology is commonly used in the medical field and clinical laboratories to perform for a large variety of assays [12][45]. For semen to be sorted using flow cytometry, firstly the sample must be diluted and labeled with a specific fluorescent dye called Hoechst 33342 which binds to the DNA of each sperm cell [46]. The X and Y chromosomes, also known as the sex chromosomes, differ significantly when it comes to DNA content, X-spermatozoa containing, on average, 3% more DNA in human and almost 4% in other livestock species, such as bulls, boars, rams, and rabbits, respectively [46]. Due to this difference, the X-chromosome-bearing spermatozoa will absorb a greater amount of dye. Subsequently, cells are then compelled to flow in single droplets into a laser contact region, to be irradiated by intense laser beams. Based on the exhibited fluorescence, the cell population may be calculated and the form and size of each cell may be assessed [47]. This basic approach has already been applied to sperm sex-sorting, especially in the dairy and beef sector, with several million calves being born from sex-sorted sperm. However, various studies have shown that the exposure of cells to certain wavelengths of the UV light spectrum, as well as the combination of fluorescent dye bis-benzimide (Hoechst 33342) used for cell labeling [48], may affect both sperm motility and membrane integrity [49][50][51][52][53].

The post-separation purity of the separated sperm cells is then confirmed by in situ hybridization. The mechanical stresses induced on sperm cells during sorting and centrifugation increase the number of dead or damaged sperm cells by almost 20% [54]. Moreover, during the sorting process, there are several other stress factors that may intervene, such as shear forces acting during the hydrodynamic focusing and passage through the injection nozzle, repeated electrical doping corresponding to sperm DNA content, and the subsequent passage through the electrostatic deflection field. Apart from the sorting process, the steps that precede or succeed, such as co-incubation with the fluorescent dye, and chilling and storage at low temperatures before insemination, respectively, are responsible for further effects on sperm quality (Figure 1).

Animals 11 01182 g001 550

Figure 1. Schematic representation of conventional sex-sorting technique (Flow cytometry).

Sex-sorted semen is usually subject to a freezing and then thawing process; thus, its fertilizing ability is significantly reduced as compared to unsorted sperm, and it has constituted a major contribution in limiting the routine use of this method in the livestock industry [55]. During sex-sorting, the sperm cells must be individually evaluated; therefore, the concentration of sperm per dose is much lower, i.e., about two million sperms per dose compared to the unsorted semen doses, which usually have a concentration of about 20 million sperm cells [56]. More recent studies focused on increasing the sperm concentration of sex-sorting semen doses in an attempt to improve fertility, but this is more likely to increase the price per dose as well.

Despite more than 30 years of development, the fertilizing ability of sex-sorted spermatozoa is still behind farmers’ expectations; however, it is worth mentioning that the sorting speed has been improved significantly [57][58][59]. A study conducted by Steel et al. (2020) [60] concluded that the flow-cytometry sex-sorting alters sperm morphokinetics in a way that extends after fertilization, thus reinforcing the fact that sperm quality plays a vital role in the early development of embryos. These findings are also supported by the study led by Mostek et al. (2020) [61], according to which the enzymes involved in glycolysis, oxidative phosphorylation, and preservation of a steady energy charge were altered in sex-sorted semen as compared to non-sorted. In addition, the proteins which are involved in capacitation, acrosome reaction, and subsequently sperm–egg fusion are less abundant in sex-sorted semen, which could explain the lower fertility potential. In research conducted by Magata et al. (2021) [62], the developmental kinetics and viability of bovine embryos produced in vitro bovine by using sex-sorted semen was continuously monitored via time-lapse, and the authors showed that both embryo development and viability were impaired when using sex-sorted semen. Apart from the biological challenges, the fairly high cost of the equipment and the necessity of well-specialized personnel has led to the development of innovative, less expensive approaches for sperm selection and sex-sorting; thereby, biomarker-based nanotechnology and microfluidics became a topic of great interest.

3. Conventional and Sex-Sorted Semen Market—Present and Future Trends

The constant growing human population is one of the most significant factors driving the need for increasing animal productivity. Nevertheless, one of our most critical priorities in the coming decades would be not only to feed the planet but also to do it in a sustainable manner. For many people all over the world, meat and dairy are important sources of nutrition. For instance, meat production has more than tripled in the past 50 years; every year, almost 330 million tons are produced, of which 30% is beef. Global demand for meat is still increasing; however, according to FAO estimates, this increase will tend to slow down [63]. Simultaneously, many consumers are likely to expand their meat selection by including pricier meat proteins, such as beef and sheep meat, resulting in increases in global per capita consumption of these meat types by 2030 [64].

Demand for dairy products, especially cheese, is expected to increase as well in the coming years, resulting in higher EU milk production in the years ahead. However, meat and dairy production has significant environmental consequences, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural land usage, and freshwater use. Producing and consuming meat, dairy, and other protein products in an environmentally friendly manner is one of the world’s most pressing challenges. To meet the EU’s sustainability goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, milk production will rise moderately to almost 180 million tons by 2030. Farming practices will most likely change, with an emphasis on herd management and nutrition [63].

Reproductive biotechnologies, such as artificial insemination, are one of the key components of an efficient farm management program. By 2028, the global demand for veterinary artificial insemination is projected to hit over USD 6 billion, rising at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.94 percent between 2021 and 2028. This increase is generated by the requirement for genetically superior animal breeds, which may allow farmers to obtain higher yields from a lower number of animals, thus reducing the environmental impact as well. Associated benefits, such as the efficient use of reproductive males, genetic selection, reduced housing costs, and reduced risk of disease transmission, are expected to increase the adoption of reproductive biotechnologies in the coming years [65]. Moreover, the use of assisted reproduction biotechnologies for the conservation of endangered species may be propelling the sector even forward.

In either beef or dairy cattle, selecting the sex of the offspring may be one of the deciding factors in increasing genetic advancement and farmer profitability, since certain productive traits are closely related to gender. Using sex-sorted semen for artificial insemination of in vitro fertilization enables livestock producers to preserve or increase their herds without having to purchase additional females or exposing the herd to potential pathogens and diseases [66][67][68]. Additionally, the use of sex-sorted semen in conjunction with other reproductive biotechnologies has the potential of improving the global livestock management by allowing for the predetermination of an animal’s sex, thus maximizing the profitability of farms [69][70][71][72][73].

Notwithstanding the improvements made over the past years in sperm sex-sorting using flow cytometry, some authors concluded that, in both beef and dairy cattle, the conception rates are lower in comparison to unsorted semen [74][75][76]. For instance, in a field trial carried out by Borchersen and Peacock [77] on three different breeds (Holstein, Jersey, and Danish Red), a variable decrease in conception rate when using sex-sorted semen was observed, ranging from 12 percent in Holstein and 5 percent in Danish Red. Another study, performed by Seidel and Schenk (2008) [78], showed lower pregnancy rates from using sex-sorted semen as compared to non-sorted. The abovementioned findings are corroborated with more recent research carried out by Mikkopla et al. (2015), [79], Joezy-Shekalgorabi et al. (2017) [80], Dawod and Elbaz (2020) [76], and Drake et al. (2020) [81] regarding the reproductive efficiency of sex-sorted sperm in cows and heifers. However, when determining whether or not to use sex-sorted semen in a dairy farm, the climatic and management practices of a herd in a particular environment must be taken into account.

Despite the literature’s varying findings regarding conception rates in cows when sex-sorted semen is used, the majority of studies with heifers shows that the conception rate after AI with sex-sorted sperm ranges between 70% and 90%, depending on the farms management [56]. For these reasons, several recommendations were made for sex-sorted semen to be used in heifers in order to achieve better results.

In the human-assisted reproduction sector, the sperm bank market is expected to expand significantly in the coming years, as well. In 2018, the global sperm bank market was valued at USD 4.33 billion, and it is expected to grow at a CAGR of 3.3 percent between 2018 and 2025 [82]. There are several factors driving the growth of this sector, such as the advancements in cryopreservation techniques, increased awareness and access to infertility care, and the fertility tourism phenomena. Another major factor that may influence the market growth is the prevalence of obesity around the world, a disorder well recognized as one of the major risk factors for male and female infertility. The increasing acceptance of single-parent or same-sex families in many countries will also contribute to the potential growth opportunities of this industry.

The sperm preparation and analysis segment is expected to increase as the prevalence of infertility in the general population continues to increase. In developed countries, the sperm analysis market is expected to expand in response to rising demand for effective treatments and government policies to support infertility treatment. The growing popularity of cross-border reproductive care in countries like Spain, Czech Republic, or Ukraine, owing to the less restrictive legal frameworks and lower costs [83], has boosted demand for semen analysis services because comprehensive semen analysis is mandatory before any assisted-reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

In order to maintain their market share, industry players are constantly developing new products, as well as forming alliances and collaborations to ensure conventional and sex-sorted semen with improved fertility and better costs. Therefore, the increased demand for sexed semen and the emergence of new and improved sexing technologies is more likely to fuel the growth of the sexed-semen segment.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ani11041182

References

  1. Bittante, G.; Negrini, R.; Bergamaschi, M.; Cecchinato, A.; Alvarado, H.T. Pure-breeding with sexed semen and crossbreeding with semen of double-muscled sires to improve beef production from dairy herds: Factors affecting heifer and cow fertility and the sex ratio. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5246–5257.
  2. Verma, K.V.S.; Garai, S.; Maiti, S.; Meena, B.S.; Bhakat, M.; Kadian, K.S. Indian dairy farmers’ willingness to pay for sexed semen. J. Dairy Res. 2020, 87, 406–409.
  3. Obuchi, T.; Osada, M.; Ozawa, T.; Nakagawa, H.; Hayashi, M.; Akiyama, K.; Sakagami, N.; Miura, R.; Geshi, M.; Ushijima, H. Comparative evaluation of the cost and efficiency of four types of sexing methods for the production of dairy female calves. J. Reprod. Dev. 2019, 65, 345–352.
  4. McCullock, K.; Hoag, D.L.; Parsons, J.; Lacy, M.; Seidel, G.E.; Wailes, W. Factors affecting economics of using sexed semen in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 6366–6377.
  5. Murphy, C.; Shalloo, L.; Hutchinson, I.; Butler, S. Expanding the dairy herd in pasture-based systems: The role of sexed semen within alternative breeding strategies. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6680–6692.
  6. Ettema, J.; Thomasen, J.; Hjortø, L.; Kargo, M.; Østergaard, S.; Sørensen, A. Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4161–4171.
  7. Osada, M.; Iwabuchi, H.; Aoki, T.; Sasaki, K.; Ushijima, H.; Ozawa, T. Economic evaluation of artificial insemination of sex-sorted semen on a Brown Swiss dairy farm—A case study. Anim. Sci. J. 2019, 90, 597–603.
  8. Vishwanath, R.; Moreno, J.F. Review: Semen sexing–current state of the art with emphasis on bovine species. Animal 2018, 12, s85–s96.
  9. Seidel, G. Economics of selecting for sex: The most important genetic trait. Theriogenology 2003, 59, 585–598.
  10. Norman, H.; Hutchison, J.; Miller, R. Use of sexed semen and its effect on conception rate, calf sex, dystocia, and stillbirth of Holsteins in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 3880–3890.
  11. Garner, D.; Seidel, G. History of commercializing sexed semen for cattle. Theriogenology 2008, 69, 886–895.
  12. Naniwa, Y.; Sakamoto, Y.; Toda, S.; Uchiyama, K. Bovine sperm sex-selection technology in Japan. Reprod. Med. Biol. 2018, 18, 17–26.
  13. Hall, J.; Glaze, J. REVIEW: System application of sexed semen in beef cattle. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2014, 30, 279–284.
  14. Squires, E. Current Reproductive Technologies Impacting Equine Embryo Production. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020, 89, 102981.
  15. Cuervo-Arango, J. Choosing the sex of the offspring in a commercial equine embryo transfer center. Med. Weter. 2015, 71, 195–197.
  16. Spinaci, M.; Perteghella, S.; Chlapanidas, T.; Galeati, G.; Vigo, D.; Tamanini, C.; Bucci, D. Storage of sexed boar spermatozoa: Limits and perspectives. Theriogenology 2016, 85, 65–73.
  17. Martini, M.; Altomonte, I.; Salari, F.; Caroli, A.M. Short communication: Monitoring nutritional quality of Amiata donkey milk: Effects of lactation and productive season. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 6819–6822.
  18. Vincenzetti, S.; Pucciarelli, S.; Santini, G.; Klimanova, Y.; Polzonetti, V.; Polidori, P. B-Vitamins Determination in Donkey Milk. Beverages 2020, 6, 46.
  19. Bathgate, R.; Mace, N.; Heasman, K.; Evans, G.; Maxwell, W.; De Graaf, S. Birth of Kids after Artificial Insemination with Sex-Sorted, Frozen-Thawed Goat Spermatozoa. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2013, 48, 893–898.
  20. Cottle, D.; Wallace, M.; Lonergan, P.; Fahey, A. Bioeconomics of sexed semen utilization in a high-producing Holstein-Friesian dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4498–4512.
  21. Hermes, R.; Behr, B.; Hildebrandt, T.B.; Blottner, S.; Sieg, B.; Frenzel, A.; Knieriem, A.; Saragusty, J.; Rath, D. Sperm sex-sorting in the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2009, 112, 390–396.
  22. Andrabi, S.; Maxwell, W. A review on reproductive biotechnologies for conservation of endangered mammalian species. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2007, 99, 223–243.
  23. Behr, B.; Rath, D.; Hildebrandt, T.; Goeritz, F.; Blottner, S.; Portas, T.; Bryant, B.; Sieg, B.; Knieriem, A.; De Graaf, S.; et al. Germany/Australia Index of Sperm Sex Sortability in Elephants and Rhinoceros. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2009, 44, 273–277.
  24. O’Brien, J.; Roth, T.; Stoops, M.; Ball, R.; Steinman, K.; Montano, G.; Love, C.; Robeck, T. Sperm sex-sorting and preservation for managing the sex ratio and genetic diversity of the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum). Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2015, 152, 137–153.
  25. George, S.M. Millions of missing girls: From fetal sexing to high technology sex selection in India. Prenat. Diagn. 2006, 26, 604–609.
  26. Kippen, R.; Gray, E.; Evans, A. High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia. Reprod. Health 2018, 15, 134.
  27. Saunders, B. Upsetting the balance on sex selection. Bioethics 2019, 33, 1022–1028.
  28. Dejarnette, J.M.; Leach, M.A.; Nebel, R.L.; Marshall, C.E.; McCleary, C.R.; Moreno, J.F. Effects of sex-sorting and sperm dosage on conception rates of Holstein heifers: Is comparable fertility of sex-sorted and conventional semen plausible? J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 3477–3483.
  29. Thomas, J.; Locke, J.; Bonacker, R.; Knickmeyer, E.; Wilson, D.; Vishwanath, R.; Arnett, A.; Smith, M.; Patterson, D. Evaluation of SexedULTRA 4M™ sex-sorted semen in timed artificial insemination programs for mature beef cows. Theriogenology 2019, 123, 100–107.
  30. Noguchi, M.; Yoshioka, K.; Hikono, H.; Iwagami, G.; Suzuki, C.; Kikuchi, K. Centrifugation on Percoll density gradient enhances motility, membrane integrity and in vitro fertilizing ability of frozen–thawed boar sperm. Zygote 2013, 23, 68–75.
  31. Arias, M.E.; Andara, K.; Briones, E.; Felmer, R. Bovine sperm separation by Swim-up and density gradients (Percoll and BoviPure): Effect on sperm quality, function and gene expression. Reprod. Biol. 2017, 17, 126–132.
  32. Muratori, M.; Tarozzi, N.; Carpentiero, F.; Danti, S.; Perrone, F.M.; Cambi, M.; Casini, A.; Azzari, C.; Boni, L.; Maggi, M.; et al. Sperm selection with density gradient centrifugation and swim up: Effect on DNA fragmentation in viable spermatozoa. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–12.
  33. Gloria, A.; Carluccio, A.; Wegher, L.; Robbe, D.; Befacchia, G.; Contri, A. Single and double layer centrifugation improve the quality of cryopreserved bovine sperm from poor quality ejaculates. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 30.
  34. Dai, X.; Wang, Y.; Cao, F.; Yu, C.; Gao, T.; Xia, X.; Wu, J.; Chen, L. Sperm enrichment from poor semen samples by double density gradient centrifugation in combination with swim-up for IVF cycles. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–8.
  35. Andersen, C.Y.; Byskov, A.G. Enhanced separation of X and Y bearing sperm cells by a combined density gradient centrifugation evaluated by fluorescencein situhybridization of the Y-chromosome. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 1997, 76, 131–134.
  36. Underwood, S.; Bathgate, R.; Maxwell, W.; Evans, G. Development of Procedures for Sex-sorting Frozen-Thawed Bovine Spermatozoa. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2009, 44, 460–466.
  37. Lucio, A.; Resende, M.; Dernowseck-Meirelles, J.; Perini, A.; Oliveira, L.; Miguel, M.; Carmo, A.; Tomita, S.; Alves, B.; Fazano, F.; et al. Assessment of swim-up and discontinuous density gradient in sperm sex preselection for bovine embryo production. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2012, 64, 525–532.
  38. Kanesharatnam, N.; Eswaramohan, T.; Balasubramaniam, K.A. Preliminary Study for Sperm Sexing by Using Sucrose Den-sity Gradients in Jersey Bull at Artificial Insemination Centre at Thirunelvely (Northern Province of Sri Lanka). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics, Chennai, India, 10–11 May 2012; Volume 31, pp. 37–40.
  39. Promthep, K.; Satitmanwiwat, S.; Kitiyanant, N.; Tantiwattanakul, P.; Jirajaroenrat, K.; Sitthigripong, R.; Singhapo, C. Practical use of percoll density gradient centrifugation on sperm sexdetermination in commercial dairy farm in Thailand. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2016, 50, 310–313.
  40. Lin, S.-P.; Lee, R.K.-K.; Tsai, Y.-J.; Hwu, Y.-M.; Lin, M.-H. Separating X-Bearing Human Spermatozoa Through a Discontinuous Percoll Density Gradient Proved to Be Inefficient by Double-Label Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1998, 15, 565–569.
  41. Wolf, C.A.; Brass, K.E.; Rubin, M.I.B.; Pozzobon, S.E.; Mozzaquatro, F.D.; De La Corte, F.D. The effect of sperm selection by Percoll or swim-up on the sex ratio of in vitro produced bovine embryos. Anim. Reprod. 2008, 5, 110–115.
  42. Esmaeilpour, T.; Elyasi, L.; Bahmanpour, S.; Ghannadi, A.; Monabbati, A.; Dehghani, F.; Kazerooni, M. Effect of combined density gradient centrifugation on X-and Y-sperm separation and chromatin integrity. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 2012, 10, 435–440.
  43. Javed, M.; Laqwer, R.; Mahouk, B.; Kannachath, A.; Najashi, S.; Sufyan, H. Does gradients or swim up procedure produce baby of desired gender? Obstet. Gynecol. Int. J. 2019, 10, 56–59.
  44. Hadi, I.H.; Mossa, H.L.S. Gender selection by Percoll® gradients by using intra-peritoneal insemination in mice: As a model of human. EurAsian J. BioSci. 2020, 14, 2385–2390.
  45. Reinsalu, O.; Scheler, O.; Mikelsaar, R.; Mikelsaar, A.-V.; Hallap, T.; Jaakma, Ü.; Padrik, P.; Kavak, A.; Salumets, A.; Kurg, A. A dual colour FISH method for routine validation of sexed Bos taurus semen. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 104.
  46. Garner, D.L.; Gledhill, B.L.; Pinkel, D.; Lake, S.; Stephenson, D.; Van Dilla, M.A.; Johnson, L.A. Quantification of the X-and Y-Chromosome-Bearing Spermatozoa of Domestic Animals by Flow Cytometry. Biol. Reprod. 1983, 28, 312–321.
  47. Johnson, L.A.; Flook, J.P.; Look, M.V. Flow cytometry of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm for DNA using an improved preparation method and staining with Hoechst 33342. Gamete Res. 1987, 17, 203–212.
  48. Cran, D.G.; Johnson, L.A.; Miller, N.G.; Cochrane, D.; Polge, C. Production of bovine calves following separation of X-and Y-chromosome bearing sperm and in vitro fertilisation. Bov. Pract. 1993, 132, 143–144.
  49. Corral-Baqués, M.I.; Rivera, M.M.; Rigau, T.; Rodríguez-Gil, J.E.; Rigau, J. The effect of low-level laser irradiation on dog spermatozoa motility is dependent on laser output power. Lasers Med. Sci. 2008, 24, 703–713.
  50. Quan, G.B.; Ma, Y.; Li, J.; Wu, G.Q.; Li, D.J.; Na Ni, Y.; Lv, C.R.; Zhu, L.; Hong, Q.H. Effects of Hoechst33342 staining on the viability and flow cytometric sex-sorting of frozen-thawed ram sperm. Cryobiology 2015, 70, 23–31.
  51. Domingues, W.B.; Da Silveira, T.L.R.; Komninou, E.R.; Monte, L.G.; Remião, M.H.; Dellagostin, O.A.; Corcini, C.D.; Junior, A.S.V.; Seixas, F.K.; Collares, T.; et al. Flow cytometric sex sorting affects CD4 membrane distribution and binding of exogenous DNA on bovine sperm cells. Zygote 2017, 25, 519–528.
  52. Balao da Silva, C.M.; Ortega-Ferrusola, C.; Morrell, J.M.; Rodriguez-Martinez, H.; Pena, F.J. Flow Cytometric Chromoso-mal Sex Sorting of Stallion Spermatozoa Induces Oxidative Stress on Mitochondria and Genomic DNA. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2016, 51, 18–25.
  53. Khalaji, N.; Namyari, M.; Rasmi, Y.; Pourjabali, M.; Chodari, L. Protective effect of curcumin on fertility of rats after expo-sure to compact fluorescent lamps: An experimental study. Int. J. Reprod. BioMed. 2018, 16, 447–454.
  54. Dararatana, N.; Tuantranont, A.; Wongtawan, T.; Oonkhanond, B. The dielectrophoresis microfluidic chip for cell separation: Case study of separation of floating cell and moving cells. In Proceedings of the 2015 8th Biomedical Engineering International Conference (BMEiCON), Pattaya, Thailand, 25–27 November 2015; pp. 1–5.
  55. Carvalho, J.; Sartori, R.; Machado, G.; Mourão, G.; Dode, M. Quality assessment of bovine cryopreserved sperm after sexing by flow cytometry and their use in in vitro embryo production. Theriogenology 2010, 74, 1521–1530.
  56. Macedo, G.G.; de Sá Filho, M.F.; Vasconcellos Sala, R.; Ferreira Mendanha, M.; Pires de Campos Filho, M.; Sampaio Baruselli, P. The Use Of Sex-Sorted Sperm For Reproductive Programs In cattle, Success in Artificial Insemination. In Quality of Semen and Diagnostics Employed; Lemma, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013; pp. 39–61.
  57. Seidel, G. Update on sexed semen technology in cattle. Animal 2014, 8, 160–164.
  58. Thomas, J.; Locke, J.; Vishwanath, R.; Hall, J.; Ellersieck, M.; Smith, M.; Patterson, D. Effective use of SexedULTRA™ sex-sorted semen for timed artificial insemination of beef heifers. Theriogenology 2017, 98, 88–93.
  59. Ferré, L.B.; Kjelland, M.E.; Strøbech, L.B.; Hyttel, P.; Mermillod, P.; Ross, P.J. Review: Recent advances in bovine in vitro embryo production: Reproductive biotechnology history and methods. Animal 2020, 14, 991–1004.
  60. Steele, H.; Makri, D.; Maalouf, W.E.; Reese, S.; Kölle, S. Bovine Sperm Sexing Alters Sperm Morphokinetics and Subsequent Early Embryonic Development. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–13.
  61. Mostek, A.; Janta, A.; Ciereszko, A. Proteomic comparison of non-sexed and sexed (X-bearing) cryopreserved bull semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2020, 221, 106552.
  62. Magata, F.; Urakawa, M.; Matsuda, F.; Oono, Y. Developmental kinetics and viability of bovine embryos produced in vitro with sex-sorted semen. Theriogenology 2021, 161, 243–251.
  63. European Commission. EU Agricultural Outlook for Markets and Income 2019–2030; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2019.
  64. Bayram, M. Future of Meat Industry. MOJ Food Process. Technol. 2017, 5, 1–8.
  65. Veterinary Artificial Insemination Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Animal Type (Cattle, Swine, Sheep, Canine, Equine), By Product (Normal Semen, Sexed Semen), by End Use, and Segment Forecasts, 2021–2028. Report ID:GVR-3-68038-570-0. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  66. Maxwell, W.; Evans, G.; Hollinshead, F.; Bathgate, R.; de Graaf, S.; Eriksson, B.; Gillan, L.; Morton, K.; O’Brien, J. Integration of sperm sexing technology into the ART toolbox. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2004, 82, 79–95.
  67. De Vries, A.; Overton, M.; Fetrow, J.; Leslie, K.; Eicker, S.; Rogers, G. Exploring the Impact of Sexed Semen on the Structure of the Dairy Industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 847–856.
  68. Chebel, R.C.; Guagnini, F.S.; Santos, J.E.P.; Fetrow, J.P.; Lima, J.R. Sex-sorted semen for dairy heifers: Effects on reproductive and lactational performances. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2496–2507.
  69. Wheeler, M.B.; Rutledge, J.J.; Fischer-Brown, A.; VanEtten, T.; Malusky, S.; Beebe, D.J. Application of sexed semen technology to in vitro embryo production in cattle. Theriogenology 2006, 65, 219–227.
  70. Peippo, J.; Vartia, K.; Kananen-Anttila, K.; Räty, M.; Korhonen, K.; Hurme, T.; Myllymaki, H.; Sairanen, A.; Mäki-Tanila, A. Embryo production from superovulated Holstein-Friesian dairy heifers and cows after insemination with frozen-thawed sex-sorted X spermatozoa or unsorted semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2009, 111, 80–92.
  71. Stewart, B.; Block, J.; Morelli, P.; Navarette, A.; Amstalden, M.; Bonilla, L.; Hansen, P.; Bilby, T. Efficacy of embryo transfer in lactating dairy cows during summer using fresh or vitrified embryos produced in vitro with sex-sorted semen. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 3437–3445.
  72. Pellegrino, C.; Morotti, F.; Untura, R.; Pontes, J.; Pellegrino, M.; Campolina, J.; Seneda, M.; Barbosa, F.; Henry, M. Use of sexed sorted semen for fixed-time artificial insemination or fixed-time embryo transfer of in vitro–produced embryos in cattle. Theriogenology 2016, 86, 888–893.
  73. Lopes, J.S.; Alcázar-Triviño, E.; Soriano-Úbeda, C.; Hamdi, M.; Cánovas, S.; Rizos, D.; Coy, P. Reproductive Outcomes and Endocrine Profile in Artificially Inseminated versus Embryo Transferred Cows. Animals 2020, 10, 1359.
  74. Schenk, J.; Suh, T.; Seidel, G. Embryo production from superovulated cattle following insemination of sexed sperm. Theriogenology 2006, 65, 299–307.
  75. DeJarnette, J.; Nebel, R.; Marshall, C. Evaluating the success of sex-sorted semen in US dairy herds from on farm records. Theriogenology 2009, 71, 49–58.
  76. Dawod, A.; Elbaz, H.T. Effect of sexed semen, puberty and breeding ages on fertility of Holstein dairy heifers treated with double Ovsynch protocol. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 2925–2930.
  77. Borchersen, S.; Peacock, M.; Danish, A.I. 2009 field data with sexed semen. Theriogenology 2009, 71, 59–63.
  78. Seidel, G.; Schenk, J. Pregnancy rates in cattle with cryopreserved sexed sperm: Effects of sperm numbers per inseminate and site of sperm deposition. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2008, 105, 129–138.
  79. Mikkola, M.; Andersson, M.; Taponen, J. Transfer of cattle embryos produced with sex-sorted semen results in impaired pregnancy rate and increased male calf mortality. Theriogenology 2015, 84, 1118–1122.
  80. Joezy-Shekalgorabi, S.; Maghsoudi, A.; Mansourian, M.R. Reproductive performance of sexed versus conventional semen in Holstein heifers in various semiarid regions of Iran. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 16, 666–672.
  81. Drake, E.; Holden, S.; Aublet, V.; Doyle, R.; Millar, C.; Moore, S.; Maicas, C.; Randi, F.; Cromie, A.; Lonergan, P.; et al. Evaluation of delayed timing of artificial insemination with sex-sorted sperm on pregnancy per artificial insemination in seasonal-calving, pasture-based lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 12059–12068.
  82. Research and Markets. Sperm Bank Market Size Analysis Report by Service Type (Sperm Storage, Semen Analysis, Genetic Consultation), by Do-nor Type (Known, Anonymous), by End Use, and Segment Forecasts, 2019–2025. Report ID:978-1-68038-423-9. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 6 April 2021).
  83. Salama, M.; Isachenko, V.; Isachenko, E.; Rahimi, G.; Mallmann, P.; Westphal, L.M.; Inhorn, M.C.; Patrizio, P. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): A growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2018, 35, 1277–1288.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback