Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 331–338 | Cite as

The influence of ploidy level on ultrastructure and motility of tench Tinca tinca (L.) spermatozoa

  • Martin Pšenička
  • Martin Flajšhans
  • Martin Hulák
  • Vojtěch Kašpar
  • Marek Rodina
  • Sergey Borishpolets
  • Otomar Linhart
Research paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The ultrastructure of diploid and triploid tench Tinca tinca (L.) spermatozoa were examined using electron microscopy focusing on parameters that influence movement. Triploid tench were produced artificially using a cold shock. Spermatozoa of triploid males in comparison with diploids featured significantly larger head (P < 0.01), higher amount of mitochondria (P < 0.05), and, surprisingly larger widths of the peripheral doublets and central pair of microtubules and the single microtubule (P < 0.01). However, the diameters of the flagellum were without significant differences as well as the length of the flagellum and length and width of the midpiece. Also motility parameters of spermatozoa did not significantly differ between diploid and triploid males, but the total velocity (summary of spermatozoa velocity and duration of movement) positively correlated with the flagellum length and negatively with the head diameter of tench spermatozoa with a high significant influence (P < 0.01).

Keywords

Microtubule Mitochondria Ploidy level Spermatozoa Tinca tinca Ultrastructure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was financially supported by project of USB RIFCH no. MSM6007665809, GACR no. 523/08/0824.

References

  1. Alavi SMH, Psenicka M, Rodina M, Policar T, Linhart O (2008a) Changes of sperm morphology, volume, density and motility and seminal plasma composition in Barbus barbus (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) during the reproductive season. Aquat Living Resour 21:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavi SMH, Psenicka M, Policar T (2008b) Sperm characteristic in Barbus barbus as a function of nutrition throughout the reproductive season. Cybium 32:200–201Google Scholar
  3. Baccetti B, Burrini AG, Callaini G, Gibertini G, Mazzini M, Zerunian S (1984) Fish germinal cell. I. Comparative spermatology of seven cyprinid species. Gamete Res 10:373–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benfey T, Solar I, de Jong G, Donaldson E (1986) Flow-cytometric confirmation of aneuploid in sperm from triploid rainbow trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 115:838–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchtova H, Svobodova Z, Flajshans M, Vorlová L (2003) Analysis of growth, weight and relevant indices of diploid and triploid population of tench Tinca tinca (Linnaeus 1758). Aquacult Res 34:719–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chourrout D, Chevassus B, Krieg F, Happe A, Burger G, Renard P (1986) Production of second generation triploid and tetraploid rainbow trout by mating tetraploid males and diploid females-potential of tetraploid fish. Theor Appl Genet 72:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christen R, Gatti JL, Billard R (1987) Trout sperm motility. Eur J Biochem 166:667–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosson J, Billard R, Cibert C, Dréanno C, Suquet M (1999) Ionic factors regulating the motility of fish sperm. In: Gagnon C (ed) From basic science the male gamete to clinical application. Cache River Press, Vienna, pp 161–186Google Scholar
  9. Davis C, Gull K (1983) Protofilament number in microtubules in cells of two parasitic nematodes. J Parasitol 69:1094–1099CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Devlin RH, Nagahama Y (2002) Sex determination and sex differentiation in fish: an overview of genetic, physiological, and environmental influences. Aquaculture 208:191–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson EM, Devlin RH (1996) Uses of biotechnology to enhance production. In: Pennell W, Barton B (eds) Principles of salmonid culture. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 969–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong Q, Huang C, Tiersch TR (2005) Spermatozoal ultrastructure of diploid and tetraploid Pacific oyster. Aquaculture 249:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flajshans M, Linhart O, Kvasnicka P (1993a) Genetic studies of tench (Tinca tinca L.). Induced triploidy and tetraploidy and first performance data. Aquaculture 113:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flajshans M, Kvasnicka P, Rab P (1993b) Genetic studies in tench (Tinca tinca L.). A high incidence of spontaneous triploidy. Aquaculture 110:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flajshans M, Kocour M, Gela D, Piackova V (2004) The first results on relationships aminy amphimictic diploid, diploid gynogenic and triploid tench, Tinca tinca L. under communal testing. Aquacult Int 12:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphries S, Evans JP, Simmons LW (2008) Sperm competition: linking form to function. BMC Evol Biol 8:319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussain MG, Panman DJ, McAndrew BJ (1996) Effects of triploidy on sexual maturation and reproduction in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus L. In: ICLARM Konference Proceedings. ICLARM, Makati City, Philippines, pp 320–325Google Scholar
  18. Jamieson BGM (1991) Fish evolution and systematics: evidence from spermatozoa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 230–295Google Scholar
  19. Kohlman K, Kersten P (2006) Microsatellite loci in tench: isolation and variability in a test population. Aquacult Int 14:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lincoln RF, Scott AP (1983) Production of all-female triploid rainbow trout. Aquaculture 30:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linhart O, Billard R (1995) Biology of gamets and artificial reproduction in common tench (Tinca tinca L.). Pol Arch Hydrobiol 42:37–56Google Scholar
  22. Linhart O, Rodina M, Bastl J, Cosson J (2003) Urinary bladder ionic composition of seminal fluid and urine with characterization of sperm motility in tench (Tinca tinca L.). J Appl Ichthyol 19:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linhart O, Rodina M, Flajshans M, Mavrodiev N, Nebesarova J, Gela D, Kocour M (2006) Studies on sperm of diploid and triploid tench. Tinca tinca (L.). Aquacult Int 14:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linhart O, Alavi SMH, Rodina M, Gela D, Cosson J (2008) Comparison of sperm velocity, motility and fertilizing ability between firstly and secondly activated spermatozoa of common carp (Cyprinus carpio). J Appl Ichthyol 24:386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Psenicka M, Rodina M, Nebesarova J, Linhart O (2006) Ultrastructure of spermatozoa of tench Tinca tinca observed by means of scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Theriogenology 66:1355–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Psenicka M, Alavi SMH, Rodina M, Gela D, Nebesarova J, Linhart O (2007) Morphology and ultrastructure of Siberian sturgeon, Acipenser baerii, spermatozoa using scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Biol Cell 99:103–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Psenicka M, Alavi SMH, Vancova M, Koubek P, Tesitel J, Linhart O (2008a) Fine structure and morphology of sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus L. 1758) spermatozoa and acrosin localization. Anim Reprod Sci, in pressGoogle Scholar
  28. Psenicka M, Alavi SMH, Rodina M, Cicova Z, Gela D, Cosson J, Nebesarova J, Linhart O (2008b) Morphology, chemical contents and physiology of chondrostean fish sperm: A comparative study between Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) and sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus). J Appl Ichthyol 24:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Purdom CE (1983) Genetic engineering by the manipulation of chromosomes. Aquaculture 33:287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodina M, Cosson J, Gela D, Linhart O (2004) Kurokura solution as immobilizing medium for spermatozoa of tench (Tinca tinca L.). Aquacult Int 12:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stoltz JA, Neff BD (2006) Sperm competition in a fish with external fertilization: the contribution of sperm number, speed and length. J Evolution Biol 19:1873–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Svobodova Z, Kolarova J, Flajshans M (1998) The first finding of the differences in complete blood count between diploid and triploid tench, Tinca tinca L. Acta Vet Brno 67:243–248Google Scholar
  33. Thorgaard GH (1983) Chromosome set manipulation and sex control in fish. Academic Press, New York, pp 405–434Google Scholar
  34. Ueda T, Sawada M, Kobayashi J (1987) Cytogenetical characteristics of embryos between diploid female and triploid male in rainbow trout. Japan J Genet 62:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vindelov LL, Christensen IJ (1990) Review of techniques and results obtained in one laboratory by an integrated system of methods designed for routine clinical flowcytometric DNA analysis. Cytometry 11:753–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zuromska H, Markowska J (1984) The effect of sexual products quality on offspring survival and quality in tench (Tinca tinca L.). Pol Arch Hydrobiol 31:287–313Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Pšenička
    • 1
  • Martin Flajšhans
    • 1
  • Martin Hulák
    • 1
  • Vojtěch Kašpar
    • 1
  • Marek Rodina
    • 1
  • Sergey Borishpolets
    • 1
  • Otomar Linhart
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, Research Institute of Fish Culture and HydrobiologyVodnanyCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations