Mare and stallion effects on blastocyst production in a commercial equine ovum pick-up-intracytoplasmic sperm injection program

Publication date

2019-10-22

Authors

Cuervo-Arango, Juan
Claes, Anthony N.ISNI 0000000492848729
Stout, Tom A.E.ORCID 0000-0001-5321-8095ISNI 0000000387838262

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article
Open Access logo

License

taverne

Abstract

This study retrospectively examined the degree to which success within a commercial ovum pick-up (OPU)-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) program varied between individual mares and stallions. Over 2 years, 552 OPU sessions were performed on 323 privately owned warmblood mares. For mares that yielded at least one blastocyst during the first OPU-ICSI cycle, there was a 77% likelihood of success during subsequent attempts; conversely, when the first cycle yielded no blastocyst, the likelihood of failure (no embryo) in subsequent cycles was 62%. In mares subjected to four or more OPU sessions, the mean percentage of blastocysts per injected oocyte was 20.5% (range 1.4-46.7%), whereas the mean number of blastocysts per OPU-ICSI session was 1.67 (0.2-4.2). Age did not differ significantly between mares that yielded good or poor results. The number of recovered oocytes per OPU was positively associated with the likelihood of success (P<0.001). Although there were considerable between-stallion differences, most stallions (14/16) clustered between 15.6% and 26.8% blastocysts per injected oocyte, and the number of blastocysts per OPU (mean 1.4; range 0.2-2.2) was less variable than among mares. In conclusion, although both mare and stallion affect the success of OPU-ICSI, mare identity and the number of oocytes recovered appear to be the most reliable predictors of success.

Keywords

ICSI, IVF, IVM, oocyte, OPU, Taverne

Citation

Cuervo-Arango, J, Claes, A N & Stout, T A E 2019, 'Mare and stallion effects on blastocyst production in a commercial equine ovum pick-up-intracytoplasmic sperm injection program', Reproduction, Fertility and Development, vol. 31, pp. 1894-1903. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD19201