Comparison of cushioned centrifugation and SpermFilter filtration on longevity and morphology of cooled-stored equine semen
This study compares two methods for seminal plasma removal by evaluating sperm recovery rates, and motility and morphology of cooled-stored semen. Ejaculates were divided into three groups: control, filtration and cushioned centrifugation. Semen was extended to 25 million sperm/ml using a skim-milk-...
Saved in:
Published in: | Veterinary record Vol. 178; no. 10; p. 241 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
England
BMJ Publishing Group Limited
05-03-2016
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This study compares two methods for seminal plasma removal by evaluating sperm recovery rates, and motility and morphology of cooled-stored semen. Ejaculates were divided into three groups: control, filtration and cushioned centrifugation. Semen was extended to 25 million sperm/ml using a skim-milk-based extender and stored at 5°C for all groups. Sperm motility (total motility (%TM) and progressive motility (%PM)) was determined at 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours by a computer-assisted sperm analyser. Sperm morphology was assessed using differential interference microscopy. Overall, %TM of the centrifugation group was significantly higher than the filter group, but not significantly different than the control. No significant difference in %TM or %PM was detected for the control group and filter. Cushioned centrifugation was a superior method to obtain progressively motile sperm compared with control (P=0.03) and filter groups (P<0.001). No significant difference was found for the per cent of normal sperm cells and detached heads between the groups. This study demonstrated that cushioned centrifugation was a superior method to remove seminal plasma while preserving %TM and enhancing %PM for stallions under cooled storage over three days. However, as the differences appear to be negligible, the SpermFilter may represent an alternative for farms lacking a centrifuge. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0042-4900 2042-7670 |
DOI: | 10.1136/vr.103607 |