Advertisement

Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 71–75 | Cite as

Compromised vitality of spermatozoa after contact with colonic mucosa in mice: implications for fertility in colon vaginoplasty patients

  • Seitaro KosakaEmail author
  • Masahiro Takeda
  • Takanori Ochi
  • Katsumi Miyahara
  • Eri Nakamura
  • Norihiro Tada
  • Geoffrey J. Lane
  • Atsuyuki Yamataka
Original Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Aim of the study

Colon vaginoplasty (CV) is often performed for cloacal malformation (CM). We used mice to study the vitality of spermatozoa after contact with colonic mucosa as a factor contributing to infertility.

Methods

Spermatozoa isolated from the epididymides of C57BL/6J male mice (n = 23) were syringed directly into the vaginas (Vag-group) or colons (Colo-group) of female mice (n = 45). Vitality was determined by assessing motility using computer-assisted sperm analysis, viability by staining with SYBR-14 and propidium iodide, and fertility by in vitro fertilization, prior to deposition, and at 5, 10, 30, and 60 min after deposition.

Main results

Motility was significantly decreased in Colo only at 10 and 60 min. Viability of Colo spermatozoa was significant at all assessment times, except at 10 min. Normal fertilization was observed with all Vag spermatozoa, but with Colo, there was arrest of embryo development with spermatozoa collected at 5 and 10 min, and no fertilization with spermatozoa collected at 30 and 60 min.

Conclusions

The vitality of spermatozoa is compromised by contact with colonic mucosa which could contribute to infertility in CM after CV, because their ovaries and fallopian tubes are considered to be normal.

Keywords

Cloacal malformation Colon vaginoplasty Spermatozoa Infertility 

References

  1. 1.
    Versteegh HP, van Rooij IA, Levitt MA, Sloots CE, Wijnen RM, de Blaauw I (2013) Long-term follow-up of functional outcome in patients with a cloacal malformation: a systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 48:2343–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pena A, Levitt MA, Hong A, Midulla P (2004) Surgical management of cloacal malformations: a review of 339 patients. J Pediatr Surg 39:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toyoda Y, Yokoyama M, Hoshi T (1971) Studies on the fertilization of mouse eggs in vitro. I. In vitro fertilization of eggs by fresh epididymal sperm. Jpn J Anim Reprod 16:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu L, Nutter LM, Law N, McKerlie C (2009) Sperm freezing and in vitro fertilization in three substrains of C57BL/6 mice. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 48:39–43Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tateno H, Kamiguchi Y (2007) Evaluation of chromosomal risk following intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the mouse. Biol Reprod 77:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Itach SB, Finklestein M, Etkovitz N, Breitbart H (2012) Hyper-activated motility in sperm capacitation is mediated by phospholipase d-dependent actin polymerization. Dev Biol 362:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garner DL, Johnson LA (1995) Viability assessment of mammalian sperm using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. Biol Reprod 53:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraser LR, Maudlin I (1978) Relationship between sperm concentration and the incidence of polyspermy in mouse embryos fertilized in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 52:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodgers AB, Morgan CP, Leu NA, Bale TL (2015) Transgenerational epigenetic programming via sperm microRNA recapitulates effects of paternal stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:13699–13704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levitt MA, Pena A (2010) Cloacal malformations: lessons learned from 490 cases. Semin Pediatr Surg 19:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P (2001) Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 7:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rackow BW, Arici A (2007) Reproductive performance of women with mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hendren WH (1998) Cloaca, the most severe degree of imperforate anus: experience with 195 cases. Ann Surg 228:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warne SA, Wilcox DT, Creighton S, Ransley PG (2003) Long-term gynecological outcome of patients with persistent cloaca. J Urol 170:1493–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Couchman A, Creighton SM, Wood D (2015) Adolescent and adult outcomes in women following childhood vaginal reconstruction for cloacal anomaly. J Urol 193:1819–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rintala RJ (2016) Congenital cloaca: Long-term follow-up results with emphasis on outcomes beyond childhood. Semin Pediatr Surg 25:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salvi N, Arthur I (2008) A case of successful pregnancy outcome in a patient born with cloacal malformation. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:343–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P (2006) In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 354:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seitaro Kosaka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Masahiro Takeda
    • 1
  • Takanori Ochi
    • 1
  • Katsumi Miyahara
    • 1
  • Eri Nakamura
    • 2
  • Norihiro Tada
    • 2
  • Geoffrey J. Lane
    • 1
  • Atsuyuki Yamataka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric General and Urogenital SurgeryJuntendo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute for Diseases of Old AgeJuntendo University Graduate School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations