...
首页> 外文期刊>Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift >Comparison of five different methods to assess the concentration of boar semen
【24h】

Comparison of five different methods to assess the concentration of boar semen

机译:评估公猪精液浓度的五种不同方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Both for research and practical purposes, accurate and repeatable methods are required to assess the concentration of boar semen samples. Since the method which is used may influence the results considerably, the aim of the present study was to compare 5 frequently used techniques to determine boar semen concentration. Fifty ejaculates were collected from 37 different boars at an artificial insemination centre. Subsequently, each ejaculate was analyzed for sperm concentration by means of 2 differenttypes of colorimeters (Colorimeter 1: Model 252, Sherwood Scientific Ltd, Cambridge, UK ; Colorimeter 2: Ciba-Corning, Schippers, Bladel, The Netherlands), the Biirker counting chamber (golden standard), and the Hamilton Thorne Analyzer (Ceros 12.1) using 2 types of Leja chambers (the 'former' and the 'recently developed'). Each ejaculate was assessed 5 times with each of the 5 methods, and the repeatability, expressed by coefficient of variation (CV), was determined for each method. The different methods were compared using Pearson's correlations and limits of agreement. The colorimeters yielded the lowest CV's (both 3.7%), while the former Leja chamber resulted in the highest CV (12.4%). Moreover, significant (P<0.01) and high correlations (r>0.71) were found between the results obtained by the different methods. The limits of agreement plots showed that none of the methods consistently over- or underestimated the sperm concentrations when compared to the Biirker chamber, although there was a tendency toward higher over-or underestimation in highly concentrated sperm samples. Based on our results, there were no major differences in the assessment of sperm concentration between the evaluated methods. The choice of method used in a laboratory could therefore be based on factors such as cost, number of samples to be assessed and practical use, without thereby negatively affecting the validity of the results thus obtained.
机译:无论是出于研究目的还是实际目的,都需要准确且可重复的方法来评估公猪精液样品的浓度。由于所使用的方法可能会显着影响结果,因此本研究的目的是比较5种常用技术来确定公猪精液浓度。在人工授精中心从37个不同的公猪中收集了50粒射精。随后,通过2种不同类型的比色计(比色计1:252型,Sherwood Scientific Ltd,英国剑桥;比色计2:Ciba-Corning,Schippers,Blade,荷兰)对每个射精的精子浓度进行分析,Biirker计数室(黄金标准)和汉密尔顿·索恩分析仪(Ceros 12.1)使用两种类型的Leja腔室(“前”腔室和“最近开发的”腔室)。用5种方法中的每种方法对每个射精进行5次评估,并用每种方法的变异系数(CV)表示重复性。使用Pearson的相关性和一致性限制对不同的方法进行了比较。比色计产生的CV最低(均为3.7%),而前Leja腔室的CV最高(12.4%)。此外,通过不同方法获得的结果之间存在显着相关性(P <0.01)和高度相关性(r> 0.71)。一致性图的极限表明,与Biirker室相比,没有一种方法能够始终高估或低估精子浓度,尽管在高浓度精子样本中有更高或低估的趋势。根据我们的结果,所评估的方法之间对精子浓度的评估没有重大差异。因此,可以基于诸如成本,待评估样品的数量和实际使用等因素来选择实验室中使用的方法,而不会因此负面影响由此获得的结果的有效性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号