Is photometry an accurate and reliable method to assess boar semen concentration?

Theriogenology

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 577-583

  Camus, A ^a   Camugli, S ^a   Leveque C ^a   Schmitt, E ^a   Staub, C ^a  

^a IMV Technologies ZI n 1 Est   (France)

Author keywords

Boar; Photometer; Reproduction; Semen; Sperm concentration

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PHOTOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; STANDARD; SWINE;

ANIMALS; CALIBRATION; MALE; PHOTOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERM COUNT; SWINE;

SUIDAE;

EID: 78650863635     PISSN: 0093691X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.09.025     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Den Daas J.H., De Jong G., Lansbergen L.M., Van Wagtendonk-De Leeuw A.M. The relationship between the number of spermatozoa inseminated and the reproductive efficiency of individual dairy bulls. J Dairy Sci 1998, 81(6):1714-1723.
2. Hansen C., Vermeiden T., Vermeiden J.P.W., Simmet C., Day B.C., Feitsma H. Comparison of FACSCount AF system, Improved Neubauer Hemacytometer, Corning 254 photometer, SpermVision, UltiMate and NucleoCounter SP-100 for determination of sperm concentration of boar semen. Theriogenology 2006, 66:2188-2194.
3. Prathalingam N., Holt W., Revell S., Jones S., Watson P. The Precision and Accuracy of Six Different Methods to Determine Sperm Concentration. J Androl 2006, 27:2.
4. Christensen P., Stenvang J., Godfrey W. A Flow Cytometric Method for Rapid Determination of Sperm Concentration and Viability in Mammalian and Avian Semen. J Androl 2004, 25:2.
5. Anzar M., Kroetsch T., Buhr M.M. Comparison of different methods for assessment of sperm concentration and membrane integrity with bull semen. J Androl 2009, 30(6):661-668.
6. WHO laboratory annual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucos interaction 1999, World Health Organization, Cambridge University Press. 4th ed.
7. Christensen P., Stryhn H., Hansen C. Discrepancies in the determination of sperm concentration using Bürker-Türk, Thoma and Makler counting chambers. Theriogenology 2005, 63(4):992-1003.
8. Freund M., Carol B. Factors affecting haemocytometer counts of sperm concentration in human semen. J Reprod Fertil 1964, 8:149-155.
9. Douglas-Hamilton D.H., Smith N.G., Kuster C.E., Vermeiden J.P., Althouse G.C. Capillary-loaded particle fluid dynamics: effect on estimation of sperm concentration. J Androl 2005, 26(1):115-122.
10. Kuster C. Sperm concentration determination between hemacytometric and CASA systems: Why they can be different. Theriogenology 2005, 64:614-617.
11. Douglas-Hamilton D.H., Smith N.G., Kuster C.E., Vermeiden J.P., Althouse G.C. Particle distribution in low-volume capillary-loaded chambers. J Androl 2005, 26(1):107-114.
12. Bartlett J.W., Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement error in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008, 31:466-475.
13. Martin Bland J., Douglas G. Altman Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 6:307-310.
14. Watson P.F., Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 2010, 73:1167-1179.