Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Veterinary Research

formerly Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 2016: 0.462

CiteScore 2016: 0.46

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.230
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.383

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2450-8608
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Assessment of stallion semen morphology using two different staining methods, microscopic techniques, and sample sizes

Katarzyna Łącka
  • Department of Animal Reproduction and Hygiene, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Stanisław Kondracki
  • Department of Animal Reproduction and Hygiene, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Maria Iwanina
  • Department of Animal Reproduction and Hygiene, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Anna Wysokińska
  • Department of Animal Reproduction and Hygiene, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-04-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jvetres-2016-0014

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to propose the optimal methodology for stallion semen morphology analysis while taking into consideration the staining method, the microscopic techniques, and the workload generated by a number of samples. Material and Methods: Ejaculates from eight pure-bred Arabian horses were tested microscopically for the incidence of morphological defects in the spermatozoa. Two different staining methods (eosin-nigrosin and eosin-gentian dye), two different techniques of microscopic analysis (1000× and 400× magnifications), and two sample sizes (200 and 500 spermatozoa) were used. Results: Well-formed spermatozoa and those with major and minor defects according to Blom’s classification were identified. The applied staining methods gave similar results and could be used in stallion sperm morphology analysis. However, the eosin-nigrosin method was more recommendable, because it allowed to limit the number of visible artefacts without hindering the identification of protoplasm drops and enables the differentiation of living and dead spermatozoa. Conclusion: The applied microscopic techniques proved to be equally efficacious. Therefore, it is practically possible to opt for the simpler and faster 400x technique of analysing sperm morphology to examine stallion semen. We also found that the number of spermatozoa clearly affects the results of sperm morphology evaluation. Reducing the number of spermatozoa from 500 to 200 causes a decrease in the percentage of spermatozoa identified as normal and an increase in the percentage of spermatozoa determined as morphologically defective.

Keywords: stallion; semen; staining methods; spermatozoa morphology

References

  • 1. Alm K., Peltoniemi O., Koskinen E., Andersson M.: Porcine field fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm morphology. Reprod Domes Anim 2006, 41, 210-213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2. 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.Google Scholar

  • 3. Banaszewska D., Kondracki S., Wysokińska A.: Effect of age on the dimensions and shape of spermatozoa of Large White Polish boars. Arch Tierz 2011, 54, 504-514.Google Scholar

  • 4. Blom E.: The ultrastructure of some characteristic sperm defect and a proposal for a new classification of the bull spermiogram. Natl Med J India 1973, 25, 383-391.Google Scholar

  • 5. Blom E.: Studies on seminal vesiculitis in the bull: II. Proposal for a new classification of the spermiogram. Med Weter 1981, 37, 239-242.Google Scholar

  • 6. Brito L.F., Greene L.M., Kelleman A., Knobbe M., Turner R.: Effect of method and clinical on stallion sperm morphology evaluation. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 745-750.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7. Brodzki P., Wrona Z., Klimont M., Krakowski L.: Morphological characteristics of boar spermatozoa in the annual production cycle. Med Weter 2015, 71, 109-113.Google Scholar

  • 8. Coetzee K., Kruger T.F., Lombard C.J.: Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum. Reprod Update 1998, 4, 73-82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 9. Foster M.L., Love C.C., Varner D.D., Brinsko S.P., Hinrisch K., Teague S., LaCaze K., Blanchard T.L.: Comparison of methods for assessing integrity of equine sperm membrane. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 334-341.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10. Freneau 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.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 11. García-Herreros M., Aparicio I.M., Barón F.J., García- Marín L.J., Gil M.C.: Standardization of sample preparation, staining and sampling methods for automated sperm head morphometry analysis of boar spermatozoa. Int J Andro 2006, 29, 553-563.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12. Garrett C., Liu D.Y., Baker H.W.: Selectivity of the human sperm-zona pellucida binding process to sperm head morphometry. Fertil Steril 1997, 67, 362-371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13. Hidalgo M., Rodríguez I., Dorado Sanz J., Soler C.: Effect of sample size and staining methods on stallion sperm morphometry by the Sperm Class Analyzer. Vet Med 2005, 50, 24-32.Google Scholar

  • 14. Hidalgo M., Rodríguez I., Dorado J.: Influence of staining and sampling procedures on goat sperm morphometry using the Sperm Class Analyzer. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 996-1003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 15. Holroyd R.G., Doogan V.J., De Faveri J.D., Fordyce G., McGowan M.R., Bertram J.D., Vankan D.M., Fitzpatrick L.A., Jayawardhana G.A., Miller R.G.: Bull selection and use in northern Australia 4: calf output and predictors of fertility of bulls in multiple-sire herds. Anim Reprod Sci 2002, 71, 67-79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16. Jasko D.J., Lein D.H., Foote R.H.: Determination of the relationship between sperm morphologic classifications and fertility in stallions: 66 cases (1987-1988). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990, 197, 389-394.Google Scholar

  • 17. Jasko D.J.: Evaluation of stallion semen. Vet Clin N Am Equine Pract 1992, 8, 129-148.Google Scholar

  • 18. Katila T.: In vitro evaluation of frozen-thawed stallion semen: a review. Acta Vet Scand 2001, 42, 199-217.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19. Knecht D., Środoń S., Dudziński K.: The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. S Afr J Anim Sci 2014, 44, 1-9.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 20. Kondracki S., Iwanina M., Wysokińska A., Huszno M.: Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet Brno 2012, 81, 195-199.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 21. Kondracki S., Banaszewska D., Bajena M., Komorowska K., Kowalewski D.: Correlation of frequency of spermatozoa morphological alterations with sperm concentration in ejaculates of Polish Landrace boars. Acta Vet Beograd 2013, 63, 513-524.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 22. Krakowski L., Piech T., Sławińska-Brych A., Tatara M.R., Bartoszek J.: Quality of Cooley semen of cold-blooded stallions evaluated with the use of apoptosis and DNA defragmentation markers. Med Weter 2014, 70, 573-578.Google Scholar

  • 23. 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24. Menkveld R., El-Garem Y., Schill W.B., Henkel R.: Relationship between human sperm morphology and acrosomal function. J Assist Reprod Gen 2003, 20, 432-438.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25. Menkveld R.: Clinical significance of the low normal sperm morphology value as proposed in the 5th WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Asian J Androl 2010, 12, 47-58.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 26. Menkveld R.: Sperm morphology assessment using strict (tygerberg) criteria. Methods Mol Biol 2013, 927, 39-50.Google Scholar

  • 27. Nowakowska I., Pozór M.A.: Sperm morphology of stallions using four different methods. Med Weter 2003, 59, 351-354.Google Scholar

  • 28. 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29. Smital J.: Effects influencing boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2009, 110, 335-346.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 30. 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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 31. Wysokińska A., Kondracki S.: Assessment of sexual activity levels and their association with ejaculate parameters in two- breed hybrids and purebred Duroc and Pietrain boars. Ann Anim Sci 2014, 14, 559-571.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-09-18

Accepted: 2016-02-03

Published Online: 2016-04-29

Published in Print: 2016-03-01


Citation Information: Journal of Veterinary Research, ISSN (Online) 2450-8608, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jvetres-2016-0014.

Export Citation

© 2016. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in