Journal of Andrology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Published-Ahead-of-Print December 5, 2005, DOI:10.2164/jandrol.05112
Journal of Andrology, Vol. 27, No. 2, March/April 2006
Copyright © American Society of Andrology
DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.05112

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/2/257    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prathalingam, N. S.
Right arrow Articles by Watson, P. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prathalingam, N. S.
Right arrow Articles by Watson, P. F.

The Precision and Accuracy of Six Different Methods to Determine Sperm Concentration

NILENDRAN S. PRATHALINGAM*,{dagger}, WILLIAM W. HOLT{dagger}, STUART G. REVELL{ddagger}, SIAN JONES{ddagger} AND PAUL F. WATSON*,{dagger}

From the * Royal Veterinary College, Camden Town, London, United Kingdom; the {dagger} Institute of Zoology, Regent's Park, London, United Kingdom; and the {ddagger} Genus Breeding Ltd Ruthin, Denbighshire, United Kingdom.

Correspondence to: Nilendran S. Prathalingam, Institute of Zoology, London, NW1 4RY, United Kingdom (e-mail: nprathalingam{at}rvc.ac.uk).


The development of new technologies and software that are routinely used in laboratories has now allowed for a more diverse novel range of methods to determine sperm concentrations more rapidly. The aim of this study was to compare 3 such novel methods developed in our laboratory, including a new flow cytometry approach, image analysis, and a fluorescent plate reader, with more conventional methods (hemocytometry, spectrophotometry, and Microcell analysis). Fifteen ejaculates were collected from 13 bulls at an artificial insemination center. The semen samples were analyzed for sperm concentration using a spectrophotometer, hemocytometry, and a novel flow cytometry technique based on counting a fixed volume of fluid. The raw ejaculate was also diluted fivefold in a long-term diluent and sent overnight to another laboratory, where sperm numbers were assessed using Microcells, an image analysis system, and a fluorescent plate reader. Each ejaculate was assessed 5 times using each of the methods described in order to determine the coefficient of variation for each method. Comparisons between methods were determined using correlation and limits of agreement. The flow cytometry results showed the lowest coefficient of variation (2.3%), with the plate reader showing the highest coefficient of variation (20.0%). There was no significant difference between any of the methods used, and none of them consistently over- or underestimated numbers when compared against each other. It is concluded that flow cytometry showed the highest repeatability of results. However, the method employed by each laboratory should be determined based on a range of factors, including cost, convenience, sample size, and number of ejaculates to be assessed.

     Key words: Cytometry, hemocytometry, microcells, spectrophotometry, plate reader






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by The American Society of Andrology.