Viability of in vitro preserved sperm of Harris’s hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus)

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Animal Reproduction, University Autonomous Metropolitan, Iztapalapa, Mexico

2 Department of Agricultural and Animal Production, University Autonomous Metropolitan, Xochimilco, Mexico

3 Secretary of Environment, Bird of Prey Rehabilitation Center, Aguascalientes, Mexico

4 In memory


Harris hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus) are the raptors with more anthropogenic use, which makes it necessary to improve their reproduction either natural or assisted for sustainable use even though they are not endangered. The aim of this study was to determine fresh and thawed P. unicinctus sperm capacitation and acrosome reaction parameters as indicators of sperm viability in ejaculates of birds with injuries. A total of 30 ejaculates were analyzed as fresh and thawed samples. Basic sperm evaluations as well as in vitro acrosomal reaction capability through the presence and distribution of Ca2+ and N-acetylglucosamine and sialic acid using chlortetracycline and agglutinin-fluorescein isothiocyanate Triticum vulgaris were performed,respectively. Tagged samples were observed using epifluorescence microscopy. The results indicated 30.00% decrease in sperm viability following freeze-thaw, while rate of capacitated sperms (10.00%) and the percentage of sperm with acrosomal reaction (40.00%) were increased. The results of the experiment demonstrated that the post-thaw viability of the obtained sperm may be an alternative for use in artificial insemination.


  1. Váradi E, Végi B, Liptói K, et al. Methods for cryopreservation of guinea fowl sperm. PLoS One 2013; 8(4): e62759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0062759.
  2. CITES. Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. http:// www. Accessed 30 March 2021.
  3. Méndez P, Curti M, Herrera de Montuto K, et al. The birds of prey didactic guide on environmental education [Spanish]. Panamá: The Peregrine Fund/ Fondo Peregrino 2006; 27:37.124.
  4. Murray M, Pizzirani S, Tseng F. A technique for evisceration as an alternative to enucleation in birds of prey: 19 cases. J Avian Med Surg 2013; 27(2): 120-127.
  5. Villaverde-Morcillo S, García-Sánchez R, Castaño C, et al. Characterization of natural ejaculates and sperm cryopreservation in a golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetus). J Zoo Wildl Med2015; 46(2): 335-338.
  6. Long JA. Kulkarni G. An effective method for improving the fertility of glycerol-exposed poultry semen. Poult Sci 2004; 83(9):1594-1601.
  7. Blanco JM, Gee G, Wildt DE, et al. Species variation in osmotic, cryoprotectant, and cooling rate tolerance in poultry, eagle, and peregrine falcon spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 2000; 63(4):1164-1171.
  8. Herrera JA, Quintana JA, López MA, et al. Individual cryopreservation with dimethyl sulfoxide and polyvinylpyrrolidone of ejaculates and pooled semen of three avian species. Arch Androl 2005;51(5): 353-360.
  9. Xia LJ, Lalli MF, Ansah GA, et al. Ultrastructure of fresh and frozen-thawed spermatozoa of high and low fertility lines of chickens. Poult Sci 1988; 67(5):819-825.
  10. Celeghini ECC, Arruda RP, Albuquerque R, et al. Utilization of fluorescent probe association for simultaneous assessment of plasmatic, acrosomal, and mitochondrial membranes of rooster spermatozoa. Braz J Poult Sci 2007; 9(3): 143-149.
  11. Blesbois E, Grasseau I, Seigneurin F. Membrane fluidity and the ability of domestic bird spermatozoa to survive cryopreservation. Reproduction 2005;129: 371-378.
  12. Long JA. Avian semen cryopreservation: what are the biological challenges? Poult Sci 2006; 85(2):232-236.
  13. Barbas JP, Mascarenhas RD. Cryopreservation of domestic animal sperm cells. Cell Tissue Bank 2009; 10(1):49-62.
  14. González-Santos JA, Ávalos-Rodríguez A, Martínez-García JA, et al. Sperm morphophysiology in different sections of the rooster reproductive tract. Int J Morphol 2019; 37(3):861-866.
  15. Lemoine M, Grasseau I, Brillard JP, et al. A reappraisal of the factors involved in vitro initiation of the acrosome reaction in chicken spermatozoa. Reproduction 2008; 136(4):391-399.
  16. de Aluja AS. Animales de laboratorio y la Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM-062-ZOO-1999) [Laboratory animals and official Mexican norms (NOM-062-ZOO-1999)]. Gac Med Mex 2002; 138(3):295-298.
  17. Lake PE, Ravie O. An exploration of cryoprotective compounds for fowl spermatozoa. Br Poult Sci 1984; 25(1):145-150.
  18. Ricart MC, Breininger E, Rodriguez PC, et al. Participation of membrane adenylyl cyclase in heparin-induced capacitation in cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa. Andrología 2015; 47(1):30-36.
  19. Peláez J, Bongalhardo DC, Long JA. Characterizing the glycocalyx of poultry spermatozoa: III. Semen cryopreservation methods alter the carbohydrate component of rooster sperm membrane glycol-conjugates. Poult Sci 2011; 90(2):435-443.
  20. Bakst MR, Bauchan G. Apical blebs on sperm storage tubule epithelial cell microvilli: their release and interaction with resident sperm in the turkey henoviduct. Theriogenology 2015; 83(9):1438-1444.
  21. Ochkur SI, Kopeika EF, Suraj PF, et al. The influence of cryopreservation on parameters of energetic metabolism and motility of fowl spermatozoa. Cryobiology 1994; 31(3):239-244.
  22. Lemoine M, Mignon-Grasteau S, Grasseau I, et al. Ability of chicken spermatozoa to undergo acrosome reaction after liquid storage or cryopreservation. Theriogenology 2010; 75(1):122-130.
  23. Ochoa F, Val D, Juárez A, et al. Identification of the functional state of the plasma membrane of native turkey sperm during the cryopreservation process [Spanish]. AICA 2014; 4:123-125.
  24. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: Pale-ontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 2001; 4(1): 1-9.
  25. Sasanami T, Murata T, Othsuki M, et al. Induction of sperm acrosome reaction by perivitelline membrane glycoprotein ZP1 in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Reproduction 2007; 133(1):41-49.
  26. Vargas Ibarra AK, Carcoba-Pérez SA, Avalos-Rodríguez A, et al. In vitro sperm storage with poultry oviductal secretions. Vet Res Forum 2020; 11(3):207-211.
  27. ouard V, Hermier D, Blesbois E. Changes in turkey semen lipids during liquid in vitro storage. Biol Reprod 2000; 63(5):1450-1456.
  28. Bakst MR, Sexton TJ. Fertilizing capacity and ultrastructure of fowl and turkey spermatozoa before and after freezing. J Reprod Fertil 1979; 55(1):1-7.
  29. Lemoine M, Dupont J, Guillory V, et al. Potential involvement of several signaling pathways in initiation of the chicken acrosome reaction. Biol Reprod 2009; 81(4):657-665.