Application of two staining methods for sperm morphometric evaluation in domestic pigs

1. Almadaly E., Farrag F., Shukry M., Murase T.: Plasma membrane integrity and morphology of frozen-thawed bull spermatozoa supplemented with desalted and lyophilized seminal plasma. Global Vet 2014, 13, 753-766.Search in Google Scholar

2. Álvarez M., Garcia-Macias V., Martinez-Pastor F., Martinez F., Borragán S.: Effects of cryopreservation on head morphometry and its relation with chromatin status in brown bear (Ursus arctos) spermatozoa. Theriogenology 2008, 70, 1498-1506.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.09718692226Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3. Andrabi S.M.H.: Mammalian sperm chromatin structure and assessment of DNA fragmentation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007, 24, 561-569.10.1007/s10815-007-9177-y345500018008155Search in Google Scholar

4. Björndahl L., SöderlundI., Johansson S., Mohammadieh M., Pourian M.R., Kvist U.: Why the WHO recommendations for eosin-nigrosin staining techniques for human sperm vitality assessment must change. J Androl 2004, 25, 671-678.10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02839.x15292094Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Brito L.F.C., Greene L.M., Kelleman A., Knobbe M., Turner R.: Effect of method and clinical on stallion sperm morphology evaluation. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 745-750.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.04.00721612814Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6. Cardoso R.C.S., Silva A.R., Silva L.D.M.: Métodos de avaliacão do semen canino congelado. Rev Bras Reprod Anim 2005, 29, 179-187.Search in Google Scholar

7. Enciso M., Cisale H., Johnson S.D., Sarasa J., Fernandez J.L., Gosalvez J.: Major morphological sperm abnormalities in the bull are related to sperm DNA damage. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 23-32.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.12.03421529921Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8. Frenau G.E., Chenoweth P.J., Ellis R., Rupp G.: Sperm morphology of beef bulls evaluated by two different methods. Anim Reprod Sci 2010, 118, 176-181.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.08.01519786333Search in Google Scholar

9. Gao D.Y., Ashworth E., Watson P.F., Kleinhans F.W., Mazur P., Crister J.K.: Hyperosmotic tolerance of human spermatozoa: separate effects of glycerol, sodium chloride, and sucrose on sperm analysis. Biol Reprod 1993, 49, 112-123.10.1095/biolreprod49.1.1128353176Search in Google Scholar

10. Gil M.C., García-Herreros M., Barón F.J., Aparicio I.M., Santos A.J., García-Marín L.J.: Morphometry of porcine spermatozoa and its functional significance in relation with the motility parameters in fresh semen. Theriogenology 2009, 71, 254-263.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.00718760833Search in Google Scholar

11. Katila T.: In vitro evaluation of frozen-thawed stallion semen: a review. Acta Vet Scand 2001, 42, 199-221.10.1186/1751-0147-42-199220231911503365Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

12. Kondracki S., Iwanina M., Wysokińska A., Huszno M.: Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet Brno 2012, 81, 141-145.10.2754/avb201281020195Search in Google Scholar

13. Kowalewski D., Kondracki S., Górski K., Bajena M., Wysokińska A.: Effect of piggery microclimate on ejaculate performance of artificial insemination boars. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 2016, 22, 225-232.Search in Google Scholar

14. Kruger T.F., Ackerman S.B., Simmons K.F., Swanson R.J., Brugo S.S., Acosta A.A.: A quick, reliable staining technique for human sperm morphology. Arch Androl 1987, 18, 275-277.10.3109/01485018708988493Search in Google Scholar

15. Kruger T.F., Lacquet F.A., Sarmiento C.A., Menkveld R., Ozgur K., Lombard C.J., Franken D.R.: A prospective study on the predictive value of normal sperm morphology as evaluated by computer (IVOS). Fertil Steril 1996, 66, 285-291.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58455-6Search in Google Scholar

16. Lavara R., Vincente J.S., Baselga M.: Genetic variation in head morphometry of rabbit sperm. Theriogenology 2013, 80, 313-318.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.04.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

17. Łącka K., Kondracki S., Iwanina M., Wysokińska A.: Assessment of stallion semen morphology using two different staining methods, microscopic techniques, and sample sizes. J Vet Res 2016, 60, 99-104.10.1515/jvetres-2016-0014Search in Google Scholar

18. Łukaszewicz E., Jerysz A., Partyka A., Siudzińska A.: Efficacy of evaluation of rooster sperm morphology using different staining methods. Res Vet Sci 2008, 85, 583-588.10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.03.010Search in Google Scholar

19. Maree L., du Plessis S.S., Menkveld R., van der Horst G.: Morphometric dimensions of the human sperm head depend on the staining method used. Hum Reprod 2010, 25, 1369-1382.10.1093/humrep/deq075Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20. Maroto-Morales A., Ramón M., García-Álvarez O., Soler A.J., Esteso M.C., Martinez-Pastor F., Pérez-Guzmán M.D., Garde J.J.: Characterization of ram (Ovis aries) sperm head morphometry using the Sperm-Class Analyzer. Theriogenology 2010, 73, 437-448.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.10.003Search in Google Scholar

21. Oberlender G., Murgas L.D.S., Zangeronimo M.G., Silva A.C., Pereira L.J., Muzzi R.A.L.: Comparison of two different methods for evaluating boar semen morphology. Arch Med Vet 2012, 44, 201-205.10.4067/S0301-732X2012000200016Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

22. O’Connel M., McClure N., Lewis S.E.: The effect of cryopreservation on sperm morphology, motility, and mitochondrial function. Hum Reprod 2002, 17, 704-709.10.1093/humrep/17.3.704Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23. Peña A.I., Lugilde L.L., Barrio M., Herradon P.G., Quintela L.A.: Effects of Equex from different sources on post-thaw survival, longevity and intracellular Ca2+ concentration of dog spermatozoa. Theriogenology 2003, 59, 1725-1739.10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01233-5Search in Google Scholar

24. Phillips N.J., McGowan M.R., Johnston S.D., Mayer D.G.: Relationship between thirty post-thaw spermatozoal characteristics and the field fertility of 11 high-use Australian dairy AI sires. Anim Reprod Sci 2004, 81, 47-61.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2003.10.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

25. Sancho M., Perez-Sanchez F., Tablado L., de Monserrat J.J., Soler C.: Computer assisted morphometric analysis of ram sperm heads: evaluation of different fixative techniques. Theriogenology 1998, 50, 27-37.10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00110-1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26. Thurston L.M., Watson P.F., Holt W.V.: Sources of variation in the morphological characteristics of sperm subpopulations assessed objectively by a novel automated sperm morphology analysis system. J Reprod Fertil 1999, 117, 271-280. 10.1530/jrf.0.1170271Search in Google Scholar

27. van der Horst G., Kitchin R.M., van der Horst M., Atherton R.W.: The effect of the breeding season, cryopreservation and physiological extender on selected sperm and semen parameters of four ferret species: implications for captive breeding in the endangered black-footed ferret. Reprod Fertil Dev 2009, 21, 351-363.10.1071/RD08075Search in Google Scholar

28. van der Horst G., Maree L.: SpermBlue: a new universal stain for human and animal sperm which is also amenable to automated sperm morphology analysis. Biotech Histochem 2009, 84, 299-308.10.3109/10520290902984274Search in Google Scholar

29. Wysokińska A., Kondracki S., Banaszewska D.: Morphometrical characteristics of spermatozoa in Polish Landrace Boars with regard to the number of spermatozoa in an ejaculate. Reprod Biol 2009, 9, 271-282.10.1016/S1642-431X(12)60031-XOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

30. Yaniz J.L., Soler C., Santolaria P.: Computer assisted sperm morphometry in mammals: a review. Anim Reprod Sci 2015, 156, 1-12.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.03.00225802026Search in Google Scholar