HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bialy, G. Articles by Smith, V. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bialy, G. Articles by Smith, V. R.

Influence of Seminal Vesicular Fluid on Morphology of Bull Spermatozoa¹

Department of Dairy Husbandry, University of Wisconsin, Madison

ABSTRACT

This study presents the distribution of spermatozoa with protoplasmic droplets in the epididymides of slaughterhouse bulls. There were 11 paired and nine single epididymides included in the study. The mean per cent of spermatozoa with droplets in the caput, corpus, and cauda were 62, 41, and 84, respectively. The per cent of spermatozoa with droplets from the right and left sides of the reproductive tract of the same bull showed less variation than among bulls. Six per cent of the spermatozoa from the ampullae had droplets.

Fluids from the seminal vesicles, when added to epididymal spermatozoa, produced changes in the per cent of spermatozoa with protoplasmic droplets. The per cent of spermatozoa with distal protoplasmic droplets from the corpus and the cauda epididymis and the per cent of sperm with proximal droplets from the caput were decreased significantly (P < 0.01). The per cent of spermatozoa with distal droplets in the caput was increased significantly. The decrease in the per cent of total sperm with droplets after the addition of the seminal vesicular fluid was statistically significant (P < 0.01).

¹ Published with the approval of the Director of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T.G. Cooper Cytoplasmic droplets: the good, the bad or just confusing? Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 9 - 11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]