Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T08:14:15.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of egg-yolk-citrate and egg-yolk-glycine dilutors on the morphology of bovine spermatozoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. P. Mukherjee  and
H. M. Dott
D. P. Mukherjee
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Reproductive Physiology and Biochemistry, Animal Research Station, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge
H. M. Dott
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Reproductive Physiology and Biochemistry, Animal Research Station, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Twenty semen samples were collected by means of the artificial vagina from three Friesian and two Dexter bulls. In each sample, the head length and head breadth of spermatozoa which did not take up the nigrosin-eosin stain, and their percentage before and after 72 hr. of preservation in egg-yolk-citrate and egg-yolk-glycine, were studied. The following results were obtained from the study:

1. No significant variation was found in the two measurements of sperm head before and after preservation in E.Y.C.

2. Both the head length and head breadth of spermatozoa preserved in E.Y.G. were significantly less than those before and after preservation in E.Y.C..

3. The change in size of the spermatozoa head in E.Y.G.. dilutor may be due to an alteration in the acrosome.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , October 1960 , pp. 225 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beatty, R. A. & Sharma, K. N. (1960). In the Press.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, P. (1958). Pres. Add. Sect. Zoology and Entomology. Ind. Sci. Congr.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. C., Dott, H. M. & Glover, T. D. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L., & Rothschild, Lord (1953). J. Exp. Biol. 30, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dott, H. M. (1956). 3rd Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. p. 42.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, D. P. & Bhattacharya, P. (1949). Proc. Zool. Soc. Berg. 2, 149.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. H. & Lardy, H. A. (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A. & Bishop, M. W. H. (1954). Nature, Lond., 174, 746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A., Gopta, H. C., Srivastava, R. K. & Pandey, M. D. (1956). Indian Vet. J. 33, 18.Google Scholar
Roy, A., Srivastava, R. K. & Pandey, M. D. (1955). Curr. Sci. 24, 246.Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Fuller, H. K. & Willet, E. L. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ström, S.(1956). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. p. 71.Google Scholar