Optimal methods to fix fish sperm for optical microscopic observation: comparisons among different fixative solutions using sperms of copulatory and non-copulatory marine fishes
- 102 Downloads
Sperm fixation in better conditions is a requisite for the examination of sperm morphology using optical microscopes. Here, we investigated the effects of different fixatives on sperm morphological characteristics in four marine fishes: copulatory sculpins Pseudoblennius marmoratus and Radulinopsis taranetzi, and non-copulatory sculpin Icelus mororanis and dragonet Repomucenus beniteguri. We found that a 2.5% glutaraldehyde solution is optimal for observing sperm morphology in these fishes. Furthermore, the low concentrations (2.5%) of formalin could be useful, but the solvent for diluting formalin should be changed depending on the species: seawater in copulatory and non-copulatory sculpins and isotonic solution in the non-copulatory dragonet.
KeywordsSperm morphology Optical microscope Fixative Fish Copulation
We thank Hiroyuki Munehara, Atsuya Miyajima, Nagaaki Sato, Namiko Sato, and the members of Usujiri Fisheries Station, Hokkaido University, for their help during sampling at Usujiri, Hakodate, Japan. We are also grateful to Tamaki Oguro for his help with fish sampling at Tassya Fishing Port, Sado, Japan. We thank Hironori Ando, Takashi Kitahashi, Midori Iida, and the members of Sado Marine Biological Station, Niigata University, for their fruitful discussion at all stages of the work. Two anonymous reviewers greatly improved this manuscript. We would like to thank Editage (http://www.editage.jp) for English language editing. This study was funded by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant No. 16H04841 and 17K19518 to SA, and partly funded by the Sasakawa Scientific Research Grant from the Japan Science Society, Grant No. 29-541 to TI.
- Akatsuka K (1995) The effects of various fixating buffer solution in the electron microscopic observations. Bull Sch Health Sci Okayama Univ 6:55–61Google Scholar
- Alavi SMH, Hatef A, Pšenička M, Kašpar V, Boryshpolets S, Dzyuba B, Cosson J, Bondarenko V, Rodina M, Gela D, Linhart O (2012) Sperm biology and control of reproduction in sturgeon: (II) sperm morphology, acrosome reaction, motility and cryopreservation. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 22:861–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hara M (2007) Ultrastructure of spermatozoa of two species of Myctophidae; Symbolophorus californiensis and Notoscopelus sp. Jpn J Ichthyol 54:41–46Google Scholar
- Hara M (2009) Ultrastructure of the spermatozoa in Japanese Osmeridae. Jpn J Ichthyol 56:119–133Google Scholar
- Hara M, Akagawa I, Kawahara R (2013) Comparative morphology of spermatozoa in the Gasterosteoidei. Jpn J Ichthyol 60:1–13Google Scholar
- Lougovois VP, Kyrana VR (2005) Freshness quality and spoilage of chill-stored fish. In: Arthur PR (ed) Food Policy, Control and Research. Vol. 1. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 35–86Google Scholar
- Morisawa M (1994) Cell signaling mechanisms for sperm motility. Zool Sci 11:647–662Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Relucenti M, Petruziello L, Familiari G, Heyn R (2010) A simple and reliable method to prepare semen for transmission electron microscopy. In: Méndez-Vilas A, Díaz J (eds) Microscopy: Science, Technology, Applications and Education. Formatex, Badajoz, pp 151–155Google Scholar
- Seed J, Chapin RE, Clegg ED, Dostal LA, Foote RH, Hurtt ME, Klinefelter GR, Makris SL, Perreault SD, Schrader S, Seyler D, Sprando R, Treinen KA, Veeramachaneni DN, Wise LD (1996) Methods for assessing sperm motility, morphology, and counts in the rat, rabbit, and dog: a consensus report. Reprod Toxicol 10:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WHO (World Health Organization) (1999) Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar