Case Studies in Polar Bear ( Ursus maritimus ) Sperm Collection and Cryopreservation Techniques

• Published in: Animals
• Main Authors: Jessye Wojtusik, Terri L. Roth, Erin Curry
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2022
• Subjects: electroejaculation; endangered species; gamete rescue; polar bear; sperm cryopreservation; sperm rescue; Veterinary medicine; SF600-1100; Zoology; QL1-991; Ursus maritimus
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12040430; https://doaj.org/article/fa6fcb66391d4bf58a3bb0fb010be290

Assisted reproductive technologies can aid conservation efforts via support of ex situ population management and preservation of genetic material. Data from 38 sperm collection attempts from 17 polar bears (1–5 procedures/bear) were evaluated. Sample collections were attempted via electroejaculation (EEJ; n = 6), urethral catheterization (UC; n = 25), or sperm rescue (SR; n = 7) during the breeding season (Jan. 1-May 21; n = 27) and nonbreeding season (May 22-Dec. 31; n = 11). Sperm retrieval was successful in 1 EEJ (16.7%), 18 UC (72.0%) and 4 SR (57.1%) collections. Initial sperm motility and viability were 50.0% and 77.0% for EEJ, 64.3 ± 7.4% and 80.9 ± 3.8% for UC, and 56.7 ± 8.8% and 80.5 ± 0.5% for SR. UC and SR were more likely to be successful during the breeding season (84.2–100%) than the nonbreeding season (25.0–33.3%). Testicular tumors were observed in four males (57%) during SR. In total, 13 samples were cryopreserved ( n = 1 EEJ, 9 UC, and 3 SR) with egg-yolk-based equine extender (EQ) or OptiXcell (OP). For both extenders, post-thaw motility and viability were reduced by 20–60% and 30–65%, respectively. Further efforts to optimize procedures are warranted, but this summary provides data useful for enhancing the success of polar bear sperm collection and cryopreservation.