COMPARISON OF THREE DIFFERENT METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF RAM SPERM CONCENTRATION

Main Article Content

Andrej Baláži
Jaromír Vašíček
Andrea Svoradová
Marián Macháč
Rastislav Jurčík
Ján Huba
Ivan Pavlík
Peter Chrenek

Abstract

Determination of sperm concentration is a critical component of semen analysis. Traditionally, the haemocytometer has been the standard tool for calibrating other techniques used to estimate sperm concentration, including photometry, Coulter counters, flow cytometry and computer-automated semen analysis (CASA). In the present study, fresh ram sperm samples (n = 7) from the Native Wallachian (NW) Slovak sheep breed were collected from one male by electro-ejaculation (EE) and analysed for sperm concentration using flow cytometer FACS Calibur, CASA Sperm VisionTM and using EVETM Automatic Cell Counter. Our results showed no significant (P ≥ 0.05) differences in the sperm concentration when analysed by these three methods. Thus, it is possible to use a cell counter to determine the approximate sperm concentration directly at the place of semen collection. This is a very practical finding since instruments such as flow cytometer or CASA are not suitable for transport to the place of semen collection.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Anzar, M., Roetsch, T. & Buhr, M. M. (2009). Comparison of different methods for assessment of sperm concentration and membrane integrity with bull semen. Journal of Andrology, 30(6), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.108.007500


Amann, R. P. & Katz, D. F. (2004). Reflections on CASA after 25 years. Journal of Andrology, 25, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02793.x


Amann, R. P. & Waberski, D. (2014). Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology, 81, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.004


Ax, R. L., Dally, M., Didion, B. A., Lenz, R. W., Love, C. C., Varner, D. D., Hafez, B. & Bellin, M. E. (2016). Semen Evaluation. In Hafez, B. & Hafez, E. S. E. (Ed.), Reproduction in Farm Animals [Online PDF] (pp. 363–375). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119265306.ch25


Bailey, E., Fenning, N., Chamberlain, S., Devlin, L., Hopkisson, J. & Tomlinson, M. (2007). Validation of sperm counting methods using limits of agreement. Journal of Andrology, 28(3), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.106.002188


Boe-Hansen, G. B & Satake, N. (2019). An update on boar semen assessments by flow cytometry and CASA. Theriogenology, 137, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.043


Brito, L., Beckman, B., Cardwell, B., DeJarnette, J. M., Hutchens, L., Kaya, A., Krieger, K. E., Lenz, R., Mitchell, J. R. & Siddiqui, A. (2012). NAAB-CSS semen quality control program minimum guidelines. NAAB Technical Conference AI and Reproduction, Vancouver, 37–41.


Brito, L. F. C., Althouse, G. C., Aurich, C., Chenoweth, P. J., Eilts, B. E., Love, C. C., Luvoni, G. C., Mitchell, J. R., Peter, A. T., Pugh, D. G. & Waberski D. (2016). Andrology laboratory review: evaluation of sperm concentration. Theriogenology. https://doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.01.002.


Hansen, C., Christensen, P., Stryhn, H., Hedeboe, A. M., Rode, M. & Boe-Hansen, G. (2002). Validation of the FACSCount AF System for Determination of Sperm Concentration in Boar Semen. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 37, 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0531.2002.00367.x


Iguer-ouada, M. & Verstegen, J. P. (2001) Evaluation of the "Hamilton Thorn computer-based automated system" for dog semen analysis. Theriogenology, 55, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00440-X


Kubovičová, E., Makarevič, A. V., Špaleková, E. & Hegedušová, Z. (2011). Motility and fertilizing ability of frozen-thawed ram sperm from two sheep breeds. Slovak Journal of Animal Science, 44(4), 134–139. Retrieved from https://sjas.ojs.sk/sjas/article/view/316/304


Kulíková, B., Baláži, A., Tóthová, J., Jurčík, R., Huba, J. & Chrenek, P. (2018). Dilution factor affects the ability of ram sperm to survive cryopreservation. Slovak Journal of Animal Science, 51(1), 41–44. Retrieved from https://sjas.ojs.sk/sjas/article/view/64/53


Morrell, J. M., Johannsson, A., Juntilla, L., Rytty, K., Bäckgren, L., Dalin, A. M. & Rodriguez-Martinez H. (2010). Stallion sperm viability, as measured by Nucleocounter SP-100, is affected by extender and enhanced by single layer centrifugation. Veterinary Medicine International, 2010:659862. https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/659862


Prathalingam, N. S., Holt, W. W., Revell, S. G., Jones, S., & Watson, P. F. (2006). The precision and accuracy of six different methods to determine sperm concentration. Journal of Andrology, 27(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.05112


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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00171-7


Zinaman, M. J., Uhler, M. L., Vertuno, E., Fisher, S. G. & Clegg, E. D. (1996). Evaluation of computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) with IDENT stain to determine sperm concentration. Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.1996.tb01784.x


World Health Organization. (2010). WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. WHO Press, 2010.

Most read articles by the same author(s)