Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:07:45.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of FF-MAS on porcine cumulus–oocyte complex maturation, fertilization and pronucleus formation in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2006

Inger Faerge*
Affiliation:
Fertility Team, Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frantisek Strejcek
Affiliation:
Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Jozef Laurincik
Affiliation:
Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovak Republic. Research Institute of Animal Production, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Detlef Rath
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Animal Production, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Heiner Niemann
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Animal Production, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Karl Schellander
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Breeding Science, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Christine Rosenkranz
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Poul Maddox Hyttel
Affiliation:
Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian Grøndahl
Affiliation:
Fertility Team, Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.
*
All correspondence to: Inger Faerge, DVM, PhD, Institute of Basic Veterinary Sciences, Groennegaardsvej 7, 1870 Frb C, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tel: +45 35283882. Fax: +45 35282548. e-mail: if@kvl.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Follicular fluid meiosis-activating sterol (FF-MAS) has been isolated from the follicular fluid (FF) of several species including man. FF-MAS increases the quality of in vitro oocyte maturation, and thus the developmental potential of oocytes exposed to FF-MAS during in vitro maturation is improved. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of FF-MAS on porcine oocyte maturation and pronucleus formation in vitro. Porcine cumulus–oocyte complexes (COCs) were isolated from abattoir ovaries and in vitro matured for 48 h in NCSU 37 medium supplemented with 1 mg/l cysteine, 10 ng/ml epidermal growth factor and 50 μM 2-mercaptoethanol with or without 10% porcine follicular fluid (pFF). For the first 22 h, 1 mM db-cAMP and 10 I.E PMSG/hCG was added. The medium was supplemented with 1 μM, 3 μM, 10 μM, 30 μM or 100 μM FF-MAS dissolved in ethanol. After maturation the COCs were denuded mechanically using a fine glass pipette under constant pH and in vitro fertilized with fresh semen (5 × 105 spermatozoa/ml). The presumptive zygotes were evaluated 18 h after fertilization. The addition of pFF increased the monospermic as well as the polyspermic penetration of oocytes. In the absence of pFF, the addition of FF-MAS decreased the polyspermic penetration rate, whereas FF-MAS in combination with pFF decreased monospermic and increased polyspermic penetration. The degeneration rate of ova decreased in the presence of FF-MAS irrespective of the presence or absence of pFF. In the absence of pFF, FF-MAS at 3–10 μM increased the number of zygotes with advanced maternal pronuclear stages. In supraphysiological doses, i.e. 30–100 μM, FF-MAS dose-dependently and reversibly inhibited nuclear maturation in the absence of pFF.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006
Figure 0

Table 1 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on sperm penetration rates

Figure 1

Figure 1 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on monospermic penetration of oocytes. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 1 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF+ vs 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF+ vs 100 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−,10 μM/FF−.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on polyspermic penetration of oocytes. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−; control FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−; 10 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF+ vs 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF+ vs 100 μM/FF−; control FF− vs 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−; 1 μM/FF− vs 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF− vs 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−.

Figure 3

Figure 3 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on the number of non-fertilized oocytes. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−; 1 μM/FF+ vs control FF+, 3 μM/FF+, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−; 10 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF+ vs 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF+ vs 100 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−.

Figure 4

Table 2 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on degeneration and inhibition of nuclear maturation of ova

Figure 5

Figure 4 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on the degeneration of ova. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 1 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF−; control FF− vs 1 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF+.

Figure 6

Figure 5 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on the inhibition of nuclear maturation of the oocytes. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 1 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−; 10 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF+ vs 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF+ vs 1 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF+, 10 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF−; control FF− vs 1 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−; 1 μM/FF− vs 3 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF− vs 1 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF− vs 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF+.

Figure 7

Table 3 Reversibility of the influence of a high dosage of FF-MAS on degeneration, inhibition of nuclear maturation and sperm penetration of ova

Figure 8

Figure 6 Reversibility of the influence of a high dosage of FF-MAS on degeneration, inhibition of nuclear maturation and sperm penetration of the ova. Control oocytes were cultured for 48 h in NCSU 37 supplemented with 100 μM FF-MAS. FF−, for the first 24 h the oocytes were cultured in NCSU 37 supplemented with 100 μM FF-MAS and for the next 24 h of culture the FF-MAS was omitted. FF+, for the first 24 h the oocytes were cultured in NCSU 37 supplemented with 100 μM FF-MAS and for the next 24 h of culture the FF-MAS was omitted and NCSU 37 was supplemented with pFF. Statistical analysis (significance level p <0.05): degeneration: control vs FF+, FF−; GV: FF+ vs control, FF−; polyspermy: FF+ vs FF−; monospermy: FF+ vs control, FF−.

Figure 9

Table 4 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on paternal pronucleus development

Figure 10

Figure 7 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on paternal pronucleus development. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): PN1–PN3: control FF+ vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF+ vs control FF+, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF− vs 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−; PN4–PN5: control FF+ vs control FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 1 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−; 10 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF+ vs 30 μM/FF−; 100 μM/FF+ vs 100 μM/FF−; control FF−, 1 μM/FF− vs 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−.

Figure 11

Table 5 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on maternal pronucleus development

Figure 12

Figure 8 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on maternal pronucleus development. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): PN1–PN3: 1 μM/FF+ vs control FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−; 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF− vs 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−, control FF−; PN4–PN5: control FF+ vs control FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 1 μM/FF−; 3 μM/FF+ vs 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+, 3 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF+; 100 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF+.

Figure 13

Table 6 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on synchronous development of paternal and maternal pronuclei

Figure 14

Figure 9 Influence of pFF and FF-MAS on synchronous development of paternal and maternal pronuclei. FF+, presence of pFF; FF−, absence of pFF−. Statistical analysis (significance level p < 0.05): control FF+ vs control FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF+ vs 1 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 3 μM/FF+ vs 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF+, 30 μM/FF+, 100 μM/FF+; 1 μM/FF− vs 30 μM/FF−, 100 μM/FF−; 30 μM/FF− vs control FF−, 1 μM/FF−, 3 μM/FF−, 10 μM/FF−, 30 μM/FF+; 100 μM/FF− vs control.