{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04442877291960508, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01622002820874471, 'mean_word_length': 5.064102564102564, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is sperm cryopreservation in absence of permeable cryoprotectants suitable for subfertile donkeys?

Sperm from fertile donkeys have been successfully frozen in absence of permeable cryoprotectants. The aim of this study was to determine whether this cryopreservation method is suitable for subfertile donkeys in comparison to conventional sperm freezing with glycerol. Ejaculates were collected from four Andalusian Donkeys: three fertile and one subfertile. Semen was frozen with an extender containing glycerol (GLY), or adding instead sucrose 0.25 molar and 1% bovine serum albumin (SUC) as non-permeable cryoprotectants. After thawing, samples were assessed for total (TM, %) and progressive (PM, %) sperm motility by CASA, plasma membrane integrity (PMI, %) by epifluorescence microscopy and DNA integrity (DFI, %) by SCSA. Results (mean ± SD) were compared between extenders in fertile and subfertile donkeys using the Student's t test. No differences between GLY and SUC treatments were found in the fertile group for the sperm parameters assessed. In subfertile donkey ejaculates, GLY resulted in significantly higher values than SUC for TM (25.5 ± 3.1 vs. 19.6 ± 1.9) and PM (13.3 ± 5.1 vs. 4.0 ± 1.2), respectively. In conclusion, considering all the sperm parameters assessed, sperm freezing in absence of permeable cryoprotectants may not be still an option for cryopreservation of subfertile donkey sperm.