Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 4;12(5):652.
doi: 10.3390/ani12050652.

Sperm Gone Smart: A Portable Device (iSperm®) to Assess Semen Concentration and Motility in Dogs

Guillaume Domain  1 , Penelope Banchi  1   2 , Hiba Ali Hassan  1 , Anouk Eilers  1 , Joke Lannoo  1 , Eline Wydooghe  1 , Wojciech Niżański  3 , Ann Van Soom  1
Affiliations

Sperm Gone Smart: A Portable Device (iSperm®) to Assess Semen Concentration and Motility in Dogs

Guillaume Domain et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The iSperm® is a portable device for semen analysis. This study aimed to investigate its correlation with a conventional computer-assisted sperm analyzer (ISAS®v1) for the assessment of semen concentration and kinematic parameters in dogs (n = 224). The intra-assay variability of both devices and their ability to estimate semen concentration at a fixed value of 40 × 106/mL were also investigated. Results showed that the intra-assay variability was lower for the ISAS®v1 for all parameters compared to the iSperm®. Hence, iSperm® estimates were more variable in-between fields. Both the iSperm® and the ISAS®v1 were not reliable in estimating semen concentration (ISAS®v1: median 30 × 106/mL, interquartile range (IQR) 12, p < 0.01; iSperm®: median 35.12 × 106/mL, IQR 11.11, p < 0.01). Finally, positive correlations were found between both devices with stronger correlations obtained when four fields were analyzed by the iSperm®. However, the low number of spermatozoa analyzed per field and the inability to avoid artifacts are downsides that currently limit the reliability of the iSperm®. Therefore, the software of iSperm® needs some improvement to make it a valid and practical alternative to automated computerized systems for the analysis of canine semen.

Keywords: automated device; canine; semen analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box plots representing semen concentration measurements by ISAS®v1 and iSperm®in comparison to the set concentration of 40 × 106/mL. The small circles represent outlier values.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Correlation trends concerning the estimation of semen concentration on ISAS®v1 and iSperm®. The four lines resulted from the comparison of the average of the four fields analyzed by ISAS®v1 and different number of fields analyzed by iSperm® (one, two, three or four fields). a Average of four frames.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Linear regressions for total motility (A) and progressive motility (B) between the ISAS®v1 and the iSperm® based on the average of four fields captured by both devices.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Root Kustritz M.V. The value of canine semen evaluation for practitioners. Theriogenology. 2007;68:329–337. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.04.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Milachich T., Dyulgerova-Nikolova D. The Sperm: Parameters and Evaluation. In: Sharma N., Chakrabarti S., Barak Y., Ellenbogen A., editors. Innovations in Assisted Reproduction Technology. IntechOpen; London, UK: 2020.
    1. Amann R.P., Waberski D. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology. 2014;81:5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brito L.F.C., Althouse G.C., Aurich C., Chenoweth P.J., Eilts B.E., Love C.C., Luvoni G.C., Mitchell J.R., Peter A.T., Pugh D.G., et al. Andrology laboratory review: Evaluation of sperm concentration. Theriogenology. 2016;85:1507–1527. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.01.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anzar M., Kroetsch T., Buhr M.M. Comparison of different methods for assessment of sperm concentration and membrane integrity with bull semen. J. Androl. 2009;30:661–668. doi: 10.2164/jandrol.108.007500. - DOI - PubMed