Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:43:31.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The chemical composition of the pre-sperm fraction of bull ejaculate obtained by electrical stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. Lutwak-Mann
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge
L. B. A. Rowson
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge

Extract

1. Semen was collected from bulls by means of the electro-ejaculation method developed by Thibault et al. (1948).

2. A copious sperm-free fraction of the ejaculate, produced in the early phase of stimulation, was examined for its chemical composition.

3. This secretion was found to have a low protein content, but its chloride concentration was higher than in the sperm-containing fractions of the ejaculate. Fructose and citric acid occurred in very low concentrations, and 5-nucleotidase was absent in the pre-sperm secretion. This indicates clearly that the secretion does not originate either in the seminal vesicles or in the ampullar glands; it is probable that it represents a discharge from the urethral glands.

4. The effect of the pre-sperm ejaculate fraction upon bull sperm fructolysis and motility was examined; both were unaffected by a considerable excess of this secretion.

5. The chemical composition of the pre-sperm secretion makes it unlikely that under physiological conditions it could play a role in the nutrition of the spermatozoa; presumably, its chief function is the clearing of the urethral passage prior to the descent of the semen proper.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1945). The Semen of Animals and Its Use for Artificial Insemination. Edinburgh: Imperial Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics.Google Scholar
Brown, H. (1945). J. Biol. Chem. 158, 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, F. F. (1940). Vet. Rec. 52, 597.Google Scholar
Elson, L. A. & Morgan, W. T. J. (1933). Biochem. J. 27, 1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, C. H. & Subbarow, Y. (1925). J. Biol. Chem. 66, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedemann, F., Cotonio, M. & Shaffer, P. (1929). J. Biol. Chem. 82, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heppel, L. A. & Hilmoe, R. J. (1951). J. Biol. Chem. 188, 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggins, C. & Johnson, A. A. (1933). Amer. J. Physiol. 103, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E. J. (1946). Microanalysis in Medical Biochemistry. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. V. & McKenzie, F. F. (1940). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 567.Google Scholar
Lundquist, F. (1949). Acta physiol. Scand. 19, Suppl. 66.Google Scholar
Lutwak-Mann, C. (1951). Biochem. Soc. Symp. 7, 24.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. & Hotchkiss, R. S.(1942). J. Urol. 48, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, F. F., Miller, J. C. & Bauguess, L. C. (1938). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 279.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1945). Biochem. J. 39, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1947). Conference on Infertility, p. 38.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. & Lutwak-Mann, C. (1951). Physiol. Rev. 31, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. L. (1948). Science, 107, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P. H. (1940). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 97, 165.Google Scholar
Roe, J. H. & Kuether, C. A. (1943). J. Biol. Chem. 147, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speck, J. F., Moulder, J. W. & Evans, E. A. (1946). J. Biol. Chem. 104, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, C., Laplaud, M. & Ortavant, R. (1948). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 226, 2006.Google Scholar
Whitehorn, J. C. (1921). J. Biol. Chem. 45, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar