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

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, 210-213.10.1111/j.1439-0531.2005.00670.xSearch in Google 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.Search in 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, 504-514.10.5194/aab-54-504-2011Search in 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.Search in 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.Search in 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, 745-750.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.04.007Search in Google 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.Search in 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, 73-82.10.1093/humupd/4.1.73Search in Google 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, 334-341.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.02.012Search in Google 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, 176-181.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.08.015Search in Google 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, 553-563.10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00696.xSearch in Google 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, 362-371.10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81924-3Search in Google 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, 24-32.10.17221/5593-VETMEDSearch in 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, 996-1003.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.02.03916620924Search in Google 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, 67-79.10.1016/S0378-4320(02)00026-XSearch in Google 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.Search in Google Scholar

17. Jasko D.J.: Evaluation of stallion semen. Vet Clin N Am Equine Pract 1992, 8, 129-148.10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30471-6Search in Google Scholar

18. Katila T.: In vitro evaluation of frozen-thawed stallion semen: a review. Acta Vet Scand 2001, 42, 199-217.10.1186/1751-0147-42-199220231911503365Search in Google 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, 1-9.10.4314/sajas.v44i1.1Search in Google Scholar

20. Kondracki S., Iwanina M., Wysokińska A., Huszno M.: Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet Brno 2012, 81, 195-199.10.2754/avb201281020195Search in Google 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, 513-524.10.2298/AVB1306513KSearch in Google 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.Search in 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, 1369-1382.10.1093/humrep/deq07520400771Search in Google 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, 432-438.10.1023/A:1026288710638Search in Google 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, 47-58.10.1038/aja.2009.14373968020111081Search in Google Scholar

26. Menkveld R.: Sperm morphology assessment using strict (tygerberg) criteria. Methods Mol Biol 2013, 927, 39-50.10.1007/978-1-62703-038-0_522992902Search in Google Scholar

27. Nowakowska I., Pozór M.A.: Sperm morphology of stallions using four different methods. Med Weter 2003, 59, 351-354.Search in 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, 704-709.10.1093/humrep/17.3.704Search in Google Scholar

29. Smital J.: Effects influencing boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2009, 110, 335-346.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.01.024Search in Google 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, 271-282.10.1016/S1642-431X(12)60031-XSearch in Google 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, 559-571.10.2478/aoas-2014-0030Search in Google Scholar