Stallion sperm concentration measurements: experience and equipment

Dale Kelley; Reed Holyoak

doi:10.58292/ct.v16.10071

Dale Kelley Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Reed Holyoak Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58292/ct.v16.10071

Keywords: Stallion, sperm concentration, laboratory experience

Abstract

Accuracy is paramount in evaluating sperm concentration and can be a challenge to those with minimal laboratory experience. Purpose of the study was to determine the effect of operator experience on sperm concentrations using 4 methods: Makler^® counting chamber, equine densimeter, iSperm, and NucleoCounter^®. There was no difference (p = 0.64) between experienced and novice processors for Makler^® counting chamber; was difference (p = 0.005) for equine densimeter; was no difference (p = 0.35) for iSperm; and was tending toward difference (p = 0.068) for NucleoCounter^®. Correlation between bias and magnitude for Makler^® counting chamber was –0.74 (p = 0.003); for equine densimeter was –0.44 (p = 0.11); for iSperm was 0.06 (p = 0.83), and NucleoCounter^® was –0.52 (p = 0.06). Makler^® counting chamber produced a mean sperm concentration similar to an experienced processor but had significant variation within novice processors. Equine densimeter significantly overestimated sperm concentrations with novice processors but had the least variation. The iSperm performed poorly for both experienced and novices and produced significantly different concentrations than other methods. Thus, iSperm cannot be recommended to accurately measure sperm concentration. Lastly, NucleoCounter had no difference in mean sperm concentrations or variation and was the best system for a novice processor to gain accurate and repeatable sperm concentration measurements.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1 Brito LFC, Althouse GC, Aurich C, et al: Andrology laboratory review: Evaluation of sperm concentration. Theriogenology 2016;85:1507–1527. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.01.002

2 Rigby SL, Varner DD, Thompson JA, et al: Measurement of sperm concentration in stallion ejaculates using photometric or direct sperm enumeration techniques. Proc Ann Conv Am Assoc Equine Pract 2001;47:236–238.

3 Comerford KL: Validation of a commercially available fluorescence-based instrument to evaluate stallion spermatozoal concentration and comparison to photometric systems. MS Thesis, Texas A & M University. Oak Trust Library; 2010.

4 Makler A: The improved ten-micrometer chamber for rapid sperm count and motility evaluation. Fertil Steril 1980;33:337–338. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)44606-6

5 Lemmens L, Van den Hoven L, van Vrouwerff NJ, et al: External quality control and training of semen analysis in the Netherlands: Starting point for further reduction of outcome variability. Asian J Androl 2022;24:15. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_46_21

6 Jørgensen N, Auger J, Giwercman A, et al: Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: An intervariation study. Int J Androl 1997;20:201–208. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2605.1997.00052.x

7 Brito LF: A multilaboratory study on the variability of bovine semen analysis. Theriogenology 2016;85:254–266. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.05.027

8 Absher M: Chapter 1 – Hemocytometer counting. In: Kruse PF, Patterson MK, editors, Tissue Culture. Academic Press; 1973, p. 395–397. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-427150-0.50098-X

9 Zinaman MJ, Uhler ML, Vertuno E, et al: Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Semen Analysis (CASA) with IDENT stain to determine sperm concentration. J Androl 1996;17:288–292. doi: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.1996.tb01784.x

10 Hansen C, Vermeiden T, Vermeiden JPW, et al: Comparison of FACSCount AF system, Improved Neubauer hemocytometer, Corning 254 photometer, SpermVision, UltiMate and NucleoCounter SP-100 for determination of sperm concentration of boar semen. Theriogenology 2006;66:2188–2194. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.020

11 World Health Organization: WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Geneva, Switzerland; WHO Press, World Health Organization: 2010.

12 Brito L, Beckman B, Cardwell B, et al: NAAB-CSS semen quality control program minimum guidelines. Proceedings of the 24th Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination and Reproduction. 2012, p. 37–41.

13 Hoogewijs MK, de Vliegher SP, Govaere JL: Influence of counting chamber type on CASA outcomes of equine semen analysis. Equine Vet J 2012;44:542–549. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00523.x

14 Anzar M, Kroetsch T, Buhr MM. Comparison of different methods for assessment of sperm concentration and membrane integrity with bull semen. J Androl 2009;30:661–668. doi: 10.2164/jandrol.108.007500