Sign inSubmit
ArticleMetrics
Research Article · Open access · Published 6 May 2022

Effect of two Different Permitting and Combination of Cryoprotectants on Cattle Oocytes Maturation Rate Following Brilliant Cresyl Blue Exposure

Masindi Lottus Mphaphathi1, Hester Adri O'Neill2 & Tshimangadzo Lucky Nedambale3

American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp. 101–107 · doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2022.101.107

6,201 accesses4,416 downloads0 citations (Crossref)Metrics
Cite Check for updates

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to elucidate the toxicity of Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), Ethylene glycol (EG), and the combination of both permitting cryoprotectants (CPAs) to cattle oocytes and the effectiveness of Brilliant cresyl blue (BCB) on immature oocytes pre-selection. Cattle ovaries were collected from the local slaughterhouse and transported within 2 hours of slaughter. The oocytes were exposed to 26 mM BCB solution. The other oocytes were not exposed to BCB solution or CPA. Oocytes were classified as BCB positive (+) or BCB negative (−). Oocytes were either exposed to DMSO, EG, or DMSO + EG at different CPA concentrations as follows: toxicity test 1 (TT1) was 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%, followed by exposure to TT2 as follows: 10, 20, 30 and 40%. The oocytes were then in vitro matured as per treatment groups. After maturation, oocyte polar body extrusion was evaluated. Treatment means were compared using the Fisher-protected t-test least significant difference. The DMSO treatment group: The oocytes with polar body extrusion were 55.1% (positive control, no BCB and no CPA exposure), 55.0% (control, CPA exposure no BCB), 22.7% [BCB− with CPA toxicity test (DMSO 5 + 10%)], 21.8% [BCB− with CPA toxicity test (DMSO 10 + 20%)] and 7.3% [BCB− with CPA toxicity test (DMSO 20 + 40%)]. The BCB + groups (DMSO 5 + 10 and DMSO 10 + 20%) had more oocytes with polar body extrusion (67.0 and 66.9%, respectively; P>0.05). The EG treatment group: There was a drastic decline of oocytes with polar body extrusion as EG CPA concentration increased (P<0.05). The BCB+ groups (EG 5 + 10 and EG 10 + 20%) had significantly more oocytes with polar body extrusion (68.9 and 51.9%). The DMSO + EG treatment group: There was a decline in oocytes polar body extrusion recorded, as the DMSO + EG CPAs concentrations were increased (P<0.05). The BCB+ groups (DMSO 5 + EG 5% and DMSO 10 + EG 10%) recorded numerically highest number of oocytes with polar body extrusion (55.1 and 55.8%) as compared to positive control (51.1%), respectively (P>0.05). In conclusion, a decline in oocyte polar body extrusion was recorded, as the DMSO, EG, and DMSO + EG concentrations were increased. The BCB can be used to identify developmentally competent oocytes.

Licence and reuse

Open access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0), as printed on the article, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original authors and the source. No permission is needed.

How to reuse this article

Responses (0)

Have a comment on this research? Sign in to respond. Responses are moderated and published with your name and affiliation; the authors are invited to reply. How we use your dataWrite a response

About this article

Cite this article

Mphaphathi, M. L., O'Neill, H. A. & Nedambale, T. L. (2022). Effect of two Different Permitting and Combination of Cryoprotectants on Cattle Oocytes Maturation Rate Following Brilliant Cresyl Blue Exposure. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 17(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2022.101.107

Licence
CC BY 4.0
Issue
Volume 17, Issue 2
Policies
Editorial independenceUse of generative AIData availabilityAppeals and complaints
Version
Version of record
Effect of two Different Permitting and Combination of Cryoprotectants on Cattle Oocytes Maturation Rate Following Brilliant Cresyl Blue ExposureAmerican Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences · Volume 17, Issue 2 · pp. 101–107 · CC BY 4.0Download