Cargando…

Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis

Detailed and direct analysis of semen, including sperm morphology, enables a diagnosis of male fertility. This study aimed to describe an economical and verified protocol for canine spermiograms and compare the effectiveness of Sperm Stain(®) and Sperm Blue(®) (Microptic, Spain) in veterinary practi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Surmacz, Paulina, Niwinska, Anna, Kautz, Ewa, Gizinski, Slawomir, Faundez, Ricardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9311200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35212033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rda.14100
_version_ 1784753555069992960
author Surmacz, Paulina
Niwinska, Anna
Kautz, Ewa
Gizinski, Slawomir
Faundez, Ricardo
author_facet Surmacz, Paulina
Niwinska, Anna
Kautz, Ewa
Gizinski, Slawomir
Faundez, Ricardo
author_sort Surmacz, Paulina
collection PubMed
description Detailed and direct analysis of semen, including sperm morphology, enables a diagnosis of male fertility. This study aimed to describe an economical and verified protocol for canine spermiograms and compare the effectiveness of Sperm Stain(®) and Sperm Blue(®) (Microptic, Spain) in veterinary practice. Sperm assessment was conducted manually, using a standard optical microscope, and via computerized semen analysis using the SCA(®) CASA (Sperm Class Analyzer(®) CASA System‐MICROPTIC, Spain). This study showed that Sperm Blue(®) is a better solution for computerized sperm quality analysis of healthy dogs. At the same time, Sperm Stain(®) turned out to be more helpful in identifying specific morphological defects of sperm. Automated canine sperm morphology analysis worked better with Sperm Blue stain, but Sperm Stain simplified manual evaluation of various organelles’ defects. Standard, manual examination is more error‐prone for an inexperienced andrology technician, but it seems to be still a gold standard technique for canine sperm assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9311200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93112002022-07-29 Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis Surmacz, Paulina Niwinska, Anna Kautz, Ewa Gizinski, Slawomir Faundez, Ricardo Reprod Domest Anim Short Communications Detailed and direct analysis of semen, including sperm morphology, enables a diagnosis of male fertility. This study aimed to describe an economical and verified protocol for canine spermiograms and compare the effectiveness of Sperm Stain(®) and Sperm Blue(®) (Microptic, Spain) in veterinary practice. Sperm assessment was conducted manually, using a standard optical microscope, and via computerized semen analysis using the SCA(®) CASA (Sperm Class Analyzer(®) CASA System‐MICROPTIC, Spain). This study showed that Sperm Blue(®) is a better solution for computerized sperm quality analysis of healthy dogs. At the same time, Sperm Stain(®) turned out to be more helpful in identifying specific morphological defects of sperm. Automated canine sperm morphology analysis worked better with Sperm Blue stain, but Sperm Stain simplified manual evaluation of various organelles’ defects. Standard, manual examination is more error‐prone for an inexperienced andrology technician, but it seems to be still a gold standard technique for canine sperm assessment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-04 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9311200/ /pubmed/35212033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rda.14100 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Reproduction in Domestic Animals published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Short Communications
Surmacz, Paulina
Niwinska, Anna
Kautz, Ewa
Gizinski, Slawomir
Faundez, Ricardo
Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title_full Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title_short Comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
title_sort comparison of two staining techniques on the manual and automated canine sperm morphology analysis
topic Short Communications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9311200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35212033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rda.14100
work_keys_str_mv AT surmaczpaulina comparisonoftwostainingtechniquesonthemanualandautomatedcaninespermmorphologyanalysis
AT niwinskaanna comparisonoftwostainingtechniquesonthemanualandautomatedcaninespermmorphologyanalysis
AT kautzewa comparisonoftwostainingtechniquesonthemanualandautomatedcaninespermmorphologyanalysis
AT gizinskislawomir comparisonoftwostainingtechniquesonthemanualandautomatedcaninespermmorphologyanalysis
AT faundezricardo comparisonoftwostainingtechniquesonthemanualandautomatedcaninespermmorphologyanalysis