View More View Less
  • 1 NARIC Research Institute for Animal Breeding, Nutrition and Meat Science, Gesztenyés u. 1, Herceghalom, H-2053, , Hungary
  • | 2 University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, , Hungary
  • | 3 University of Debrecen, Doctoral School of Animal Science, Debrecen, , Hungary
  • | 4 Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, , Hungary
Open access

Abstract

When using artificial insemination in porcine reproduction, one of the most important requirements is the suitable quality of semen regarding its total motility (TM) and progressive motility (PM). Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) is an appropriate method to analyse the quality of semen. Recently a portable instrument has been developed to help specialists in their everyday field work. In our study, semen quality was measured simultaneously by the portable device (Ongo) and a laboratory CASA system (Microptic) to compare TM and PM values obtained by these appliances at a concentration of 50 × 106 spermatozoa/mL. Agreement between measurements was evaluated with a Bland-Altman plot. Strong correlation was found between the investigated instruments for all the three parameters, i.e. sperm concentration, TM and PM. However, a few measurements fell outside the defined range of acceptance.

Abstract

When using artificial insemination in porcine reproduction, one of the most important requirements is the suitable quality of semen regarding its total motility (TM) and progressive motility (PM). Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) is an appropriate method to analyse the quality of semen. Recently a portable instrument has been developed to help specialists in their everyday field work. In our study, semen quality was measured simultaneously by the portable device (Ongo) and a laboratory CASA system (Microptic) to compare TM and PM values obtained by these appliances at a concentration of 50 × 106 spermatozoa/mL. Agreement between measurements was evaluated with a Bland-Altman plot. Strong correlation was found between the investigated instruments for all the three parameters, i.e. sperm concentration, TM and PM. However, a few measurements fell outside the defined range of acceptance.

For a successful artificial insemination (AI) all quantity and quality parameters of semen and sperm cells have to be examined. It is generally accepted that a boar semen ejaculate with <60% total motility (TM) or >20% abnormalities may compromise fertility (Flowers, 2002).

Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) is a widespread method which can objectively evaluate sperm motion characteristics, morphology and sperm concentration (SC). It provides an independent interpretation based on optical microscopy and 2D video micrography (Didion, 2008).

The accomplishment is highly dependent on the experience and routine of the examiner running the analysis (Buss et al., 2019).

In case of desktop CASA, semen evaluation is performed under laboratory conditions using a phase-contrast microscope connected to a desktop computer. A portable device can offer a rapid evaluation of semen under field conditions right after ejaculation or before insemination (Amann and Waberski, 2014).

Recently Buss et al. (2019) have examined semen from 10 stallions (diluted to three different concentrations, i.e. 25, 50 and 100 × 106 spermatozoa/mL) by a laboratory CASA system (SpermVision, Minitube, Tiefenbach, Germany) and a portable device (Ongo, Sperm Test®, Microfluidlabs, Budapest, Hungary) for TM and progressive motility (PM). When comparing the analysed SCs, the concentration of 50 × 106 spermatozoa/mL resulted in the highest r values for PM and TM. Agreement between the results was evaluated by a Bland–Altman plot. The results obtained by the portable CASA strongly correlated with those obtained by desktop CASA.

In this study we assessed boar semen motility using the previously mentioned portable device and a desktop CASA in order to compare the results of these two instruments and to investigate the reliability of measurements obtained by the portable device.

A total of eight boars (two Duroc × Pietrain, two Danbred × Duroc, two Hungarian Landrace and two Hungarian Large White boars) were included in the study and 1,164 semen samples were collected from these boars using a gloved-hand technique (Althouse et al., 2006). The freshly ejaculated boar semen was diluted with Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS) (Pursel and Johnson, 1975) and examined right after collection. The delivery temperature was 17 °C. All ejaculates were analysed for concentration, TM and PM by a desktop CASA system (Sperm Class Analyzer – SCA, Microptic S. L., Barcelona, Spain) and a portable device (Ongo Sperm Test®, Microfluidlabs, Budapest, Hungary).

Every sample was analysed for SC, PM and TM by Ongo and Microptic CASA to compare the two systems. The measuring process was always the same. The samples were diluted with BTS to the final concentrations of 50 × 106 spermatozoa/mL. Ten µL of diluted semen was pipetted into the chambers of the slide. The classification of spermatozoa was performed according to Buss et al. (2019). Statistical analysis was performed by the use of a Bland–Altman plot (Bland and Altman, 1986), where differences between measured values (paired values) are plotted against the mean of the paired values. Plotting and statistical calculations were performed with the Python 3.6.2 software (Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, Delaware, United States).

After the examination of the samples a total of 1,164 values were obtained on both Ongo and Microptic CASA. SC agreement (Fig. 1A) was found at Ongo vs. Microptic CASA, the bias was 3.56 M/mL, with a 95% limit of agreement (upper limit = 15.41 M/mL, lower limit = −8.28 M/mL). The bias of PM was −1.49%, with a 95% limit of agreement (upper limit = 11.00; lower limit = −13.98) (Fig. 1B). The mean difference of TM (Fig. 1C) was 0.00%, with a 95% limit of agreement (upper limit = 12.42; lower limit = −12.43).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Bland–Altman plots of measurements. The Y axis represents the difference between Ongo and Microptic CASA paired measurements. (A) Average sperm concentration (SC, M/mL) measured by Ongo Sperm Analyzer and Desktop (Microptic) CASA. The X axis shows the average SC of a given sample. The red line is the mean difference of concentrations at the Y value of 3.56 M/mL. Dashed, red lines are the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement at values 15.41 and −8.28, respectively. (B) Progressive motility (PM, %) measured by Ongo Sperm Analyzer and Desktop (Microptic) CASA. The X axis shows the average of PM (%) of a given sample. The red line is the mean difference of PM at a value of −1.49%. Dashed, red lines are the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement at values 11.00 and −13.98, respectively. (C) Total motility (TM, %) measured by Ongo Sperm Analyzer and Desktop (Microptic) CASA. The X axis shows the average TM (%) of a given sample. The red line is the mean difference of TM at value 0.00%. Dashed, red lines are the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement at values 12.42 and −12.43, respectively

Citation: Acta Veterinaria Hungarica 68, 2; 10.1556/004.2020.00023

In semen analysis the values measured by a clinical andrology laboratory must be within ±10% of the reference values, whereas a ±20% deviation might be acceptable for a general diagnostic laboratory (Mortimer et al., 2015). In our study the ratios of measurement falling outside the defined range of acceptance were low. At a general diagnostic laboratory level 2.15, 2.41 and 1.72% of the Ongo values were outside the defined range of acceptance in case of SC, PM and TM, respectively. The same values were lower at a relaxed range (Table 1), which is more suitable for a portable device.

Table 1.

Percentage of Ongo measurements falling outside the defined range of acceptance

Defined range of acceptance (%)Sperm concentrationProgressive motilityTotal motility
202.152.411.72
300.171.030.34

A strong agreement was demonstrated between results obtained by Ongo and Microptic CASA devices concerning SC, PM and TM.

Average differences for SC, PM and TM represented on Bland–Altman plots indicate a slight bias between the two instruments regarding SC and PM. Low ratios of measurements fell outside the defined range of acceptance at the general diagnostic laboratory level. These ratios dropped at a more relaxed level (Table 1).

According to the outcome of this study SC, PM and TM results of spermatozoa obtained by the Ongo portable device are similar to those provided by the Microptic desktop CASA system. The Ongo instrument is a practical and cost-effective opportunity in cases where a complete CASA system is not available or not affordable. Ongo can be recommended as a fast appliance for semen analysis in the field practice of animal breeding and veterinary medicine, but the results must be evaluated on the field level.

Although correlations among the three parameters were found (Fig. 1), still we recorded a few measurements which were outside the defined range of acceptance (Table 1). We assume that more accurate results could be achieved if the boar-semen-specific configuration of the Ongo instrument were further improved.

References

  • Althouse, G. C., Levis, D. G. and Diehl, J. (2006): Semen collection, evaluation and processing in the boar. Factsheet, Pork Information Gateway 17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amann, R. P. and Waberski, D. (2014): Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology 81, 517.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bland, J. M. and Altman, D. G. (1986): Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307310.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buss, T., Aurich, J. and Aurich, Ch. (2019): Evaluation of a portable device for assessment of motility in stallion semen. Rep. Dom. Anim. 54, 514519.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Didion, B. A. (2008): Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples. Theriogenology 70, 13741376.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Flowers, W. L. (2002): Increasing fertilization rate of boars: influence of number and quality of spermatozoa inseminated. J. Anim. Sci. 80, E47E53.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mortimer, S. T., van der Horst, G. and Mortimer, D. (2015): The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J. Androl. 17, 545553.

  • Pursel, V. G. and Johnson, L. A. (1975): Freezing of boar spermatozoa: fertilizing capacity with concentrated semen and a new thawing procedure. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 99102.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Althouse, G. C., Levis, D. G. and Diehl, J. (2006): Semen collection, evaluation and processing in the boar. Factsheet, Pork Information Gateway 17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amann, R. P. and Waberski, D. (2014): Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology 81, 517.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bland, J. M. and Altman, D. G. (1986): Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307310.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buss, T., Aurich, J. and Aurich, Ch. (2019): Evaluation of a portable device for assessment of motility in stallion semen. Rep. Dom. Anim. 54, 514519.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Didion, B. A. (2008): Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples. Theriogenology 70, 13741376.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Flowers, W. L. (2002): Increasing fertilization rate of boars: influence of number and quality of spermatozoa inseminated. J. Anim. Sci. 80, E47E53.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mortimer, S. T., van der Horst, G. and Mortimer, D. (2015): The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J. Androl. 17, 545553.

  • Pursel, V. G. and Johnson, L. A. (1975): Freezing of boar spermatozoa: fertilizing capacity with concentrated semen and a new thawing procedure. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 99102.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Author information is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

The manuscript preparation instructions is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

Senior editors

Editor-in-Chief: Mária BENKŐ

Managing Editor: András SZÉKELY

Editorial Board

  • Béla DÉNES (National Food Chain Safety Office, Budapest Hungary)
  • Edit ESZTERBAUER (Veterinary Medical Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Hedvig FÉBEL (National Agricultural Innovation Centre, Herceghalom, Hungary)
  • László FODOR (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Balázs HARRACH (Veterinary Medical Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Peter MASSÁNYI (Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic)
  • Béla NAGY (Veterinary Medical Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tibor NÉMETH (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Zsuzsanna NEOGRÁDY (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Alessandra PELAGALLI (University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy)
  • Kurt PFISTER (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany)
  • László SOLTI (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • József SZABÓ (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Péter VAJDOVICH (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • János VARGA (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Štefan VILČEK (University of Veterinary Medicine in Kosice, Kosice, Slovak Republic)
  • Károly VÖRÖS (University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Herbert WEISSENBÖCK (University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria)
  • Attila ZSARNOVSZKY (Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary)

ACTA VETERINARIA HUNGARICA
Institute for Veterinary Medical Research
Centre for Agricultural Research
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
P.O. Box 18, H-1581 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 467 4081 (ed.-in-chief) or (36 1) 213 9793 (editor) Fax: (36 1) 467 4076 (ed.-in-chief) or (36 1) 213 9793

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Biological Abstracts
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • CAB Abstracts
  • Chemical Abstracts
  • Current Contents: Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
  • Elsevier Science Navigator
  • Focus On: Veterinary Science and Medicine
  • Global Health
  • Index Medicus
  • Index Veterinarius
  • Medline
  • Science Citation Index
  • Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch)
  • SCOPUS
  • The ISI Alerting Services
  • Zoological Abstracts

 

2020  
Total Cites 987
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
0,955
Rank by Veterinary Sciences 101/146 (Q3)
Impact Factor  
Impact Factor 0,920
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 1,164
Impact Factor
Journal  0,57
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Veterinary Sciences 93/166 (Q3)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 49
Items
Total 49
Articles
Total 0
Reviews
Scimago 33
H-index
Scimago 0,395
Journal Rank
Scimago Veterinary (miscellaneous) Q2
Quartile Score  
Scopus 355/217=1,6
Scite Score  
Scopus General Veterinary 73/183 (Q2)
Scite Score Rank  
Scopus 0,565
SNIP  
Days from  145
submission  
to acceptance  
Days from  150
acceptance  
to publication  
Acceptance 19%
Rate

 

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
798
Impact Factor 0,991
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,897
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,092
Immediacy
Index
0,119
Citable
Items
59
Total
Articles
59
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
9,1
Citing
Half-Life
9,2
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00080
Article Influence
Score
0,253
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,09791
Average
IF
Percentile
42,606
Scimago
H-index
32
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,372
Scopus
Scite Score
335/213=1,6
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
General Veterinary 62/178 (Q2)
Scopus
SNIP
0,634
Acceptance
Rate
18%

 

Acta Veterinaria Hungarica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 696 EUR / 872 USD
Print + online subscription: 804 EUR / 1004 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 710 EUR / 892 USD
Print + online subscription: 824 EUR / 1028 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Veterinaria Hungarica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
1951
Publication
Programme
2020 Volume 68
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0236-6290 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2705 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2021 0 55 17
Jul 2021 0 58 31
Aug 2021 0 40 23
Sep 2021 0 24 15
Oct 2021 0 20 28
Nov 2021 0 26 31
Dec 2021 0 1 1