Motility assessment of porcine spermatozoa: A comparison of methods

Reproduction in Domestic Animals

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 447-453

  Vyt, P ^a,c   Maes, D ^b   Rijsselaere, T ^b   Dejonckheere, E ^a   Castryck, F ^a   Van Soom, A ^b  

^a ANIMAL HEALTH CARE FLANDERS   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c NONE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLORING AGENT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; MALE; MICROSCOPY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPERMATOZOON; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; SPERMATOZOON MOTILITY; SWINE;

ANIMALS; AUTOANALYSIS; COLORING AGENTS; COMPUTERS; MALE; MICROSCOPY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPERM COUNT; SPERM MOTILITY; SPERMATOZOA; SWINE;

PIERIS BRASSICAE; SUIDAE; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 11144330151     PISSN: 09366768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2004.00538.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abaigar T, Holt W, Harrison R, del Barrio G, 1999: Sperm subpopulations in boar (Sus scrofa) and Gazelle (Gazella dama mhorr) semen as revealed by pattern analysis of computer-assisted motility assessments. Biol Reprod 60, 32-41.
2. Bland JM, Altman D. 1986: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307-310.
3. Britt JH, Almond GW, Flowers WL, 1999: Diseases of the reproductive system. In: Straw B. D'Allaire S. Mengeling W, Taylor D (eds), Diseases of Swine, 8th edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp. 903.
4. Chan SY, Wang C, Song BL. Lo T, Leung A, Tsoi WL, Leung J, 1989: Computer-assisted image analysis of sperm concentration in human semen before and after swim-up separation: comparison with assessment by haemocytometer. Int J Androl 12, 339-345.
5. Chong AP, Walters CA, Weinrieb SA, 1983: The neglected laboratory test. The semen analysis. J Androl 4, 280-282.
6. Dunphy BC, Kay R, Barratt CL, Cooke ID, 1989: Quality control during the conventional analysis of semen, an essential exercise. J Androl 10, 378-385.
7. Hoflack G, Maes D, Van Soom A, Opsomer G, de Kruif A, 2003: Comparison of fresh semen quality parameters in Belgian Blue and Holstein Friesian bulls. Reprod Dom Anim 38, 337.
8. Holt W, Watson P, Curry M, Holt C, 1994: Reproducibility of computer-aided semen analysis; comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. Fertil Steril 62, 1277-1282.
9. Holt C, Holt W, Moore H, Reed H, Curnock R, 1997: Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. J Androl 18, 312-323.
10. Iguer-ouada M, Versiegen J, 2001a: Evaluation of the 'Hamilton-Thorne computer-based automated system' for dog semen analysis. Theriogenology 55, 733-749.
11. Iguer-ouada M, Versiegen J, 2001b: Validation of the Sperm Quality Analyzer (SQA) for dog sperm analysis. Theriogenology 55, 1143-1158.
12. Johnson LA, Weitze KF, Fiser P, Maxwell WMC, 2000: Storage of boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 62, 143-172.
13. Johnston RC, Clarke GN, Liu DY, Baker HW, 1995: Assessment of Sperm Quality Analyzer. Fertil Steril 63, 1070-1076.
14. Kommisrud E, Paulenz H, Sehested E, Grevle IS, 2002: Influence of boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta Vet Scand 43, 49-55.
15. Kondracki S, 2003: Breed differences in semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination in Poland. Pig News Inf 24, 119N-122N.
16. Mahmoud AM, Depoorter B, Piens N, Comhaire FH, 1997: The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. Fertil Steril 68, 340-345.
17. Petrie A, Watson P, 1999: Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science, Chapter 13, Additional Topics. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 243.
18. Rath D, Weitze KF, Armbrecht S, Bielfeld P, 1987: Einjährige Erfahrungen mit einem Videomikrographiesystem (Cellsoft) zur Spermabeurteilung. Dtsch Tierärztl Wschr 94, 501-503.
19. Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, de Kruif A, 2002: Use of the Sperm Quality Analyzer (SQA II-C) for the assessment of dog sperm quality. Reprod Domest Anim 37, 158-163.
20. Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, de Kruif A, 2003: Effect of technical settings on canine semen motility parameters measured by the Hamilton-Thorne analyzer. Theriogenology 60, 1553-1568.
21. Shipley C, 1999: Breeding soundness examination in the boar. Swine Health Prod 7, 117-120.
22. Vantman D, Koukoulis G, Dennison L, Zinaman M, Sherins RJ, 1988: Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination. Fertil Steril 49, 510-515.
23. Versiegen J, Iguer-ouada M, Onclin K, 2002: Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57, 149-179.
24. Vyt P, Maes D, Dejonckheere E, Castryck F, Van Soom A, 2004: Comparative study on five different commercial extenders for boar semen. Reprod Dom Anim 39, 8-12.
25. Woelders H, 1991: Overview of in vitro methods for evaluation of semen quality. 11th Int Conf Boar Semen Pres 1, 145-165.
26. Yeung CH, Cooper TG, Nieschlag E, 1997: A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. Fertil Steril 67, 1156-1158.