FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene2018; 54(3); 514-519; doi: 10.1111/rda.13390

Evaluation of a portable device for assessment of motility in stallion semen.

Abstract: In horse breeding, quality assessment of semen before insemination is often requested. Non-laboratory-based techniques for objective analysis of sperm motility are thus of interest. The aim of this study was evaluating a portable device for semen analysis (Ongo sperm test) and its comparison with computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA). Semen was collected from 10 stallions, diluted to 100, 50 and 25 × 106  sperm/ml and analysed for total (TM) and progressive motility (PM). The final sperm concentration influenced total motility analysed by Ongo (p < 0.05) which was higher at 100 × 106  sperm/ml when compared to 25 × 106  sperm/ml (p < 0.05) but not when compared to 50 × 106  sperm/ml (n.s.). Sperm concentration did not influence total motility when assessed by SpermVision (n.s.). Agreement between methods was evaluated by correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plot. Intra-assay variation of Ongo was 5.2% ± 3.0 for TM and 6.9% ± 3.4 for PM. Correlation between Ongo and CASA was r = 0.79, 0.88 and 0.83 for 100, 50 and 25 × 106  sperm/ml for TM, and r = 0.87, 0.89 and 0.87 for PM, respectively (all p < 0.001). At the 100 and 25 mio/ml dilutions, the difference between the two systems deviated significantly from 0, while no such bias existed at the 50 mio/ml dilution (TM Ongo 85.0%, CASA 82.3%; PM Ongo 64.1%, CASA 66.1%). The 95% confidence interval was 19.9%, 18.9% and 19.2% ± mean for TM and 20.7%, 17.4% and 20.3% ± mean for 100, 50 and 25 × 106  sperm/ml, respectively. In conclusion, Ongo sperm test sperm motility data were strongly correlated with data obtained by CASA. In addition, at a concentration of 50 × 106  sperm/ml values measured with both systems were close to identical. At this concentration, which is recommended in equine AI, Ongo and CASA can be used interchangeably.
© 2018 The Authors. Reproduction in Domestic Animals Published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-12-28 PubMed ID: 30592335PubMed Central: PMC7379573DOI: 10.1111/rda.13390Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study examines the efficacy of a portable device, the Ongo sperm test, in analyzing the motility of stallion semen, comparing it to the traditional computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) method. The research found a strong correlation between the results produced by the Ongo test and the CASA method, especially at a specific concentration of semen.

Research Objectives

  • The primary aim of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of a portable device called the Ongo sperm test in analyzing the motility of stallion semen for horse breeding.
  • Moreover, the study intended to compare the results produced by the Ongo sperm test with those obtained through the traditional method of semen analysis: computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA).

Methodology

  • Semen was collected from 10 stallions and diluted to different concentrations: 100, 50 and 25 × 10 sperm/ml.
  • The researchers then performed total motility (TM) and progressive motility (PM) analyses on these samples using both the Ongo test and the CASA system.
  • Correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between the two methods. The intra-assay variation of the Ongo test was also measured.

Results

  • The study found that the final sperm concentration notably influenced the total motility when analyzed by the Ongo test. The highest total motility was observed at 100 × 10 sperm/ml when compared to 25 × 10 sperm/ml. Yet, no significant difference was noted when compared to 50 × 10 sperm/ml.
  • However, the sperm concentration did not seem to impact the total motility when analyzed through the SpermVision system.
  • The correlation between the Ongo test and CASA was relatively high, showing strong agreement between the two methods of semen motility analysis.
  • The study discovered significant differences between the two systems when examining semen samples at 100 and 25 million/ml dilutions, but not at a 50 million/ml dilution.

Conclusion

  • The Ongo sperm test produced semen motility data that strongly correlated with the data obtained by the CASA system.
  • At a semen concentration of 50 × 10 sperm/ml – a level recommended for equine artificial insemination – the values measured by both the Ongo test and CASA were nearly identical.
  • This consistency suggests that, at this concentration, the two systems can be used interchangeably for stallion semen motility analysis, making the Ongo test a viable option for non-laboratory-based sperm motility evaluations.

Cite This Article

APA
Buss T, Aurich J, Aurich C. (2018). Evaluation of a portable device for assessment of motility in stallion semen. Reprod Domest Anim, 54(3), 514-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13390

Publication

Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene
ISSN: 1439-0531
NlmUniqueID: 9015668
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 3
Pages: 514-519

Researcher Affiliations

Buss, Tammo
  • Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transfer, Department for Small Animals and Horses, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Aurich, Jörg
  • Section for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Andrology, Department for Small Animals and Horses, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Aurich, Christine
  • Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transfer, Department for Small Animals and Horses, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Fertility
  • Horses / physiology
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Male
  • Semen / cytology
  • Semen Analysis / instrumentation
  • Semen Analysis / veterinary
  • Sperm Motility
  • Spermatozoa / ultrastructure

Conflict of Interest Statement

None of the authors have any conflict of interest to declare.

References

This article includes 27 references
  1. Amann RP, Waberski D. Computer‐assisted sperm analysis (CASA): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology 81, 5–17.
    pubmed: 24274405
  2. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307–310.
    pubmed: 2868172
  3. Bompart D, García‐Molina A, Valverde A, Caldeira C, Yániz J, Núñez de Murga M, Soler C. CASA‐Mot technology: How results are affected by the frame rate and counting chamber. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development 30, 810–819.
    pubmed: 29614241
  4. Brinsko SP. Insemination dose: How low can we go?. Theriogenology 66, 543–550.
    pubmed: 16737733
  5. Brinsko SP, Rowan KR, Varner DD, Blanchard TL. Effects of transport container and ambient storage temperature on motion characteristics of equine spermatozoa. Theriogenology 53, 1641–1655.
    pubmed: 10883850
  6. Broekhuijse MLWJ, Šoštarić E, Feitsma H, Gadella BM. Additional value of computer assisted semen analysis (CASA) compared to conventional motility assessments in pig artificial insemination. Theriogenology 76, 1473–1486.
    pubmed: 21872316
  7. Comerford KL, Love CC, Brinsko SP, Edmund AJ, Waite JA, Teague SR, Varner DD. Validation of a commercially available fluorescence‐based instrument to evaluate stallion spermatozoal concentration. Animal Reproduction Science 107, 316–317.
  8. Giaretta E, Munerato M, Yeste M, Galeti G, Spinaci M, Tamanini C, Bucci D. Implementing an open‐access CASA software for the assessment of stallion sperm motility: Relationship with other sperm quality parameters. Animal Reproduction Science 176, 11–19.
    pubmed: 27887759
  9. Heckenbichler S, Deichsel K, Peters P, Aurich C. Quality and fertility of cooled‐shipped stallion semen at the time of insemination. Theriogenology 75, 849–856.
    pubmed: 21196042
  10. Hoogewijs MK, De Vliegher SP, Govaere JL, De Schauwer C, De Kruif A, Van Soom A. Influence of counting chamber type on CASA outcomes of equine semen analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal 44, 542–549.
    pubmed: 22150933
  11. Jasko DJ, Lein DH, Foote RH. The repeatability and effect of semen on seminal characteristics and computer‐aided sperm analysis in the stallion. Theriogenology 35, 317–327.
    pubmed: 16726902
  12. Jasko DJ, Little TV, Smith K, Leinl DH, Foote RH. Objective analysis of stallion sperm motility. Theriogenology 30, 1159–1167.
    pubmed: 17087905
  13. Jasko DJ, Martin JM, Squires EL. Effects of insemination volume and concentration of spermatozoa on embryo recovery in mares. Theriogenology 37, 1233–1239.
  14. Loomis PR. Advanced methods for handling and preparation of stallion semen. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 22, 663–676.
    pubmed: 17129794
  15. Loomis PR, Graham JK. Commercial semen freezing: Individual male variation in cryosurvival and the response of stallion sperm to customized freezing protocols. Animal Reproduction Science 195, 119–128.
    pubmed: 18178040
  16. Love CC. Relationship between sperm motility, morphology and the fertility of stallions. Theriogenology 76, 547–557.
    pubmed: 21497893
  17. Mortimer ST. CASA – Practical aspects. Journal of Andrology 21, 515–524.
    pubmed: 10901437
  18. Mortimer ST, van der Horst G, Mortimer D. The future of computer‐aided sperm analysis. Asian Journal of Andrology 17, 545–553.
    pmc: PMC4492043pubmed: 25926614
  19. Pagl R, Aurich JE, Müller‐Schlösser F, Aurich C. Comparison of an extender containing defined milk protein fractions with a skim milk‐based extender for storage of equine semen at 5–8°C. Theriogenology 66, 1115–1122.
    pubmed: 16620943
  20. Rijsselaere T, Van Soon A, Maes D, de Kruif A. Effect of technical settings on canine semen motility parameters measured by the Hamilton‐Thorne analyzer. Theriogenology 60, 1553–1568.
    pubmed: 14519475
  21. Schäfer‐Somi S, Aurich C. Use of a new computer‐assisted sperm analyzer for the assessment of motility and viability of dog spermatozoa and evaluation of four different semen extenders for predilution. Animal Reproduction Science 102, 1–13.
    pubmed: 17045428
  22. Tejerina F, Buranaamnuay K, Saravia F, Wallgren M, Rodriguez‐Martinez H. Assessment of motility of ejaculated, liquid‐stored boar spermatozoa using computerized instruments. Theriogenology 69, 1129–1138.
    pubmed: 18358522
  23. Varner DD, Blanchard TL, Love CL, Garcia MC, Kenney RM. Effects of cooling rate and storage temperature on equine spermatozoal motility parameters. Theriogenology 29, 1043–1054.
    pubmed: 16726426
  24. Varner DD, Blanchard TL, Love CL, Garcia MC, Kenney RM. Effects of semen fractionation and dilution ratio on equine spermatozoal motility parameters. Theriogenology 28, 709–723.
    pubmed: 16726354
  25. Verstegen J, Iguer‐Ouada M, Onclin K. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57, 149–179.
    pubmed: 11775967
  26. World Health Organisation. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen, 5th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation.
  27. Yeste M, Bonet S, Rodríguez‐Gil JE, Rivera Del Álamo MM. Evaluation of sperm motility with CASA‐Mot: Which factors may influence our measurements?. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 30, 789–798.
    pubmed: 29533761

Citations

This article has been cited 6 times.
  1. Ge YM, Lu JC, Tang SS, Xu YH, Liang YJ. Performance evaluation of sperm concentration, motility, and morphological analysis for GSA-810 series of sperm quality analysis system. J Clin Lab Anal 2023 Dec;37(23-24):e24986.
    doi: 10.1002/jcla.24986pubmed: 38009489google scholar: lookup
  2. Egyptien S, Deleuze S, Ledeck J, Ponthier J. Sperm Quality Assessment in Stallions: How to Choose Relevant Assays to Answer Clinical Questions. Animals (Basel) 2023 Oct 6;13(19).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13193123pubmed: 37835729google scholar: lookup
  3. Suárez-Trujillo A, Kandula H, Kumar J, Devi A, Shirley L, Thirumalaraju P, Kanakasabapathy MK, Shafiee H, Hart L. Validation of a smartphone-based device to measure concentration, motility, and morphology in swine ejaculates. Transl Anim Sci 2022 Oct;6(4):txac119.
    doi: 10.1093/tas/txac119pubmed: 36263416google scholar: lookup
  4. Domain G, Banchi P, Ali Hassan H, Eilers A, Lannoo J, Wydooghe E, Niżański W, Van Soom A. Sperm Gone Smart: A Portable Device (iSperm(®)) to Assess Semen Concentration and Motility in Dogs. Animals (Basel) 2022 Mar 4;12(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12050652pubmed: 35268220google scholar: lookup
  5. Gacem S, Catalán J, Valverde A, Soler C, Miró J. Optimization of CASA-Mot Analysis of Donkey Sperm: Optimum Frame Rate and Values of Kinematic Variables for Different Counting Chamber and Fields. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 29;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10111993pubmed: 33138237google scholar: lookup
  6. Hook KA, Fisher HS. Methodological considerations for examining the relationship between sperm morphology and motility. Mol Reprod Dev 2020 Jun;87(6):633-649.
    doi: 10.1002/mrd.23346pubmed: 32415812google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.