1. bookVolume 70 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1820-7448
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Antimicrobial Resistance as a Problem for the Quality of Boar Semen

Published Online: 03 Apr 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 70 (2020) - Issue 1 (March 2020)
Page range: 136 - 146
Accepted: 12 Mar 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1820-7448
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine whether the bacteria from the environment and from the mucous membrane of the boar prepuce have antimicrobial resistance and whether the result obtained is similar/same to the bacteria that can be found in native boar semen. The study addresses the problem of the presence of primarily resistant bacterial strains in the boar sperm, which, due to their reduced sensitivity, cannot be suppressed by antibiotics used in the semen dilution agent, as well as to emphasize the importance of microbiological monitoring of the boar mucous membranes and ambient surfaces before and during their exploitation. Such an examination could contribute to the interchangeable design of the dilution agent for the boar semen relative to the antibiotic content.Resistant strains of bacteria from prepuce swabs and swabs taken from the facility, as well as from native boar semen were isolated. The presence of these bacteria affected the quality of the semen. In conclusion, it should be pointed out that bacterial monitoring of the prepuce and surface of the facility can indicate possible problems related to the quality of semen, and that the design of the dilution agent for boar semen should be adjusted to the established resistance of isolated bacteria.

Keywords

1. Cottell E, Harrison R.F, McCaffrey M, Walsh T, Mallon E, Barry-Kinsella C: Are seminal fluid microorganisms of significance or merely contaminants?. Fertil Steril 2000, 74, 465-470.10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00709-3Search in Google Scholar

2. Žura Zaja I, Samardžija M, Vince S, Majić-Balić I, Vilić M, Ðuričcić D, Milinković-Tur S: Influence of boar breeds or hybrid genetic composition onsemen quality and seminal plasma biochemical variables. Anim Reprod Sci, 2016, 164, 169-17610.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.11.02726692346Search in Google Scholar

3. Althouse GC. and Lu KG: Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 2005, 63, 573-584.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.03115626417Search in Google Scholar

4. Morrell JM, Wallgren M: Removal of bacteria from boar ejaculates by single layer centrifugation can reduce the use of antibiotics in semen extenders. Anim Reprod Sci 2011, 123, 64–69.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.11.00521145185Search in Google Scholar

5. Althouse GC, Pierdon MS, Lu KG:Thermotemporal dynamics of contaminant bacteria and antimicrobials in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 2008, 70, 1317–1323.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.01018774598Search in Google Scholar

6. Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepúlveda L, Torner E, Pinart E, Bonet B: Effects of different concentrations of enterotoxigenic and verotoxigenic E. coli on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci 2011, 127, 176–182.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.07.01821907505Search in Google Scholar

7. Ubeda JL, Ausejo R, Dahmani Y, Falceto MV, Usan A, Malo C:Adverse effects of members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on boar sperm quality. Theriogenology 2013, 80, 565–570.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.05.02223827823Search in Google Scholar

8. Fraczek M, Hryhorowicz M, Gaczarzewicz D, Szumala-Kakol A, Kolanowski TJ, Beutin L: Can apoptosis and necrosis coexist in ejaculated human spermatozoa during in vitro semen bacterial infection?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015, 32, 771–779.10.1007/s10815-015-0462-x442945225808020Search in Google Scholar

9. Köhn FM, Erdmann I, Oeda T, El Mulla KF, Schiefer HG, Schill WB: Influence of urogenital infections on sperm functions. Andrologia 1998, 30, 73–80.10.1111/j.1439-0272.1998.tb02829.x9629446Search in Google Scholar

10. Diemer T, Huwe P, Michelmann HW, Mayer F, Schiefer HG, Weidner W: Escherichia coli-induced alterations of human spermatozoa. An electron microscopy analysis. Int J Androl 2000, 23, 178–186.10.1046/j.1365-2605.2000.00224.x10844544Search in Google Scholar

11. Zan Bar T, Yehuda R, HachamT, Krupnik S, BartoovB: Influence of Campylobacter fetus subsp. fetus on ram sperm cell quality. J Med Microbiol 2008, 57, 1405–1410.10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001057-018927420Search in Google Scholar

12. Prieto-Martínez N, Bussalleu E, Gracia-Bonavila E, Bonet S, Yeste M: Effects of Enterobacter cloacae on boar sperm quality during liquid storage at 17°C. Anim Reprod Sci 2014, 148, 72–82.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.05.00824880981Search in Google Scholar

13. Monga M and Roberts JA:Spermagglutination by bacteria: receptor-specific interactions. J Androl 1994, 15, 151–156.Search in Google Scholar

14. Schulz M, Sánchez R, Soto L, Risopatrón J, Villegas J: Effect of Escherichia coli and its soluble factors on mitochondrial membrane potential, phosphatidylserine translocation, viability, and motility of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 2010, 94, 619–623.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.14019324341Search in Google Scholar

15. Gączarzewicz D, Udała J, Piasecka M, Błaszczyk B, Stankiewicz T: Bacterial contamination of boar semen and its relationship to sperm quality preserved in commercial extender containing gentamicin sulfate. Pol J Vet Sci 2016, 19, 3, 451–459.10.1515/pjvs-2016-005727760038Search in Google Scholar

16. International ISO standard 8607, First Edition 2003-02-01 Clean the sensitive animal – Frozen seed of breeding bulls - Number of live aerobic microorganisms, Reference number ISO 8607: 2003 (E)Search in Google Scholar

17. Rozeboom JK: Evaluating Boar Semen Quality. Animal science facts, Extension Swine Husbandry. North Carolina State University 2000., College of Agriculture & Life Sciences. Publication number: ANS00-812S.Search in Google Scholar

18. Heriberto Rodriguez-Martinez: Semen evaluation: can we forecast fertility?. Vet stanica 2019, 50, 293-305Search in Google Scholar

19. Apić J, Stančić I., Vakanjac S, Radović I, Milovanović A, Barna T, Maletić M.,: Influence of the protein content of boar seminal plasma on spermatozoa viability, motility and acrosome integrity in diluted semen stored for 3 days. Animal Reproduction,2016, v.13, n.1, p.36-4110.21451/1984-3143-AR792Search in Google Scholar

20. Maes D, Nauwynck H, Rijsselaere T, Mateusen B, Vyt P, de Kruif A, Van Soom A: Diseases in swine transmitted by artificial insemination: An overview.Theriogenology 2008, 70, 8, 1337-1345.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.01818657310Search in Google Scholar

21. Maroto Martín LO, Muñoz EC, De Cupere F, Van Driessche E, Echemendia-Blanco D, Rodríguez JMM, Beeckmans S: Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Anim Reprod Sci 2010, 120, 95–104.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.00820427136Search in Google Scholar

22. Bresciani C, Cabassi CS, Morini G, Taddei S, Bettini R, Bigliardi E, Di Ianni F,Sabbioni A, Parmigiani E: Boar semen bacterial contamination in Italy and antibiotic efficacy in a modified extender. Ital. J. Anim Sci 2014, 13, 83–87.10.4081/ijas.2014.3082Search in Google Scholar

23. Schulze M, Dathe M, Waberski D, Müller K: Liquid storage of boar semen: Current and future perspectives on the use of cationic antimicrobial peptides to replace antibiotics in semen extenders. Theriogenology 2016, 85, 39–46.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.07.01626264695Search in Google Scholar

24. Okazaki T, Mihara T, Fujita Y, Yoshida S, Teshima H, Shimada M: Polymyxin B neutralizes bacteria-released endotoxin and improves the quality of boar sperm during liquid storage and cryopreservation. Theriogenology 2010, 74, 1691–1700.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.05.01920615528Search in Google Scholar

25. Kaur K. and Prabha V: Sperm Impairment by sperm agglutinating factor isolated from Escherichia coli: receptor specific interactions. Biomed Res Int 2013, 1, 2, 548-497.10.1155/2013/548497373038523956989Search in Google Scholar

26. Pirnay JP, Matthijs S, Colak H, Chablain P, Bilocq F, Van Eldere J: Global Pseudomonas aeruginosa biodiversity as reflected in a Belgian river. Environ Microbiol 2005, 7, 7, 969-80.10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00776.x15946293Search in Google Scholar

27. Heck LW, Morihara K, Abrahamson DR: Degradation of soluble laminin and depletion of tissue-associated basement membrane laminin by Pseudomonas aeruginosa elastase and alkaline protease. Infect Immun 1986, 54, 1, 149-53.10.1128/iai.54.1.149-153.19862601293093382Search in Google Scholar

28. Lamont IL and Martin LW: Identification and characterization of novel pyoverdine synthesis genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiology 2003, 149, 4, 833-842.10.1099/mic.0.26085-012686626Search in Google Scholar

29. Jimenez PN, Koch G, Thompson JA, Xavier KB, Cool RH, Quax WJ: The multiple signalling systems regulating virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2012, 76, 1, 46-65.10.1128/MMBR.05007-11329442422390972Search in Google Scholar

30. Schulze M, Ammon C, Rüdiger K, Jung M, Grobbel M: Analysis of hygienic critical control points in boar semen production. Theriogenology 2015, 83, 430–437.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.10.00425459424Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo