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 Jul 13;12(1):11943.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16280-6.

Comparison of NUCLEOCOUNTER, ANDROVISION with Leja chambers and the newly developed ANDROVISION eFlow for sperm concentration analysis in boars

Rudolf Grossfeld  1 , Julia Pable  1 , Ulrike Jakop  2 , Christian Simmet  1 , Martin Schulze  3
Affiliations

Comparison of NUCLEOCOUNTER, ANDROVISION with Leja chambers and the newly developed ANDROVISION eFlow for sperm concentration analysis in boars

Rudolf Grossfeld et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Exact analysis of sperm concentration in raw and diluted semen is of major importance in swine artificial insemination, as sperm concentration is one of the most important characteristics of an ejaculate determining the value of the ejaculate and the productive life of the boar. The study compares different methods for sperm concentration analysis in raw and diluted boar semen: NUCLEOCOUNTER SP-100, the ANDROVISION with Leja chambers and the new ANDROVISION eFlow system. The Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) between NUCLEOCOUNTER and ANDROVISION eFlow was 0.955 for raw (n = 185 ejaculates) and 0.94 for diluted semen (n = 109 ejaculates). The CCC between NUCLEOCOUNTER and ANDROVISION with Leja chambers was 0.66. A Bland-Altman plot of split-sample measurements of sperm concentration with NUCLEOCOUNTER and ANDROVISION eFlow showed that 95.1% of all measurements lay within ± 1.96 standard deviation. The coefficients of variance were 1.6 ± 1.3%, 3.6 ± 3.6% and 7.3 ± 6.3% for NUCLEOCOUNTER, ANDROVISION eFlow and ANDROVISION with Leja chambers in diluted semen, respectively. NUCLEOCOUNTER and ANDROVISION eFlow are comparable tools to measure the concentration of raw and diluted boar semen. In comparison to ANDROVISION with Leja chambers, concentration analyses of diluted semen using NUCLEOCOUNTER or ANDROVISION eFlow show a higher repeatability within and a higher concordance between the methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of control tower with fluid management system and the eFlow chamber on a microscope stage. The pre-diluted sperm sample is automatically transferred from the sample container to the reusable eFlow chamber under the microscope objective. The microscope has a camera, which is connected to a PC with the ANDROVISION CASA software.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Method comparison of NUCLEOCOUNTER and eFlow sperm concentration of 185 raw boar ejaculates as measured in split samples with the NUCLEOCOUNTER as reference method and ANDROVISION eFlow. The Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) of the method comparison was 0.955.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland–Altman plot of split-sample measurements of sperm concentration with ANDROVISION eFlow and NUCLEOCOUNTER (reference method). 95.1% of all measurements lie within mean ± 1.96 SD. The confidence interval (shaded area) of the mean of the absolute differences (± 6.13 × 106, CI =  − 2.51 × 106–9.75 × 106) includes the x-axis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Plots of coefficient of variation (CV) of sperm concentration double measurements with NUCLEOCOUNTER, ANDROVISION eFlow and Leja chamber, respectively (a,b,c P < 0.0001).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of boar sperm concentrations (diluted semen) measurements methods. ANDROVISION eFlow and disposable counting chambers (Leja) were tested against the NUCLEOCOUNTER (NC), respectively. The linear regressions are defined as y = 1.06 + 0.94 × for ANDROVISION eFlow and y =  − 3.6 + 1.04 × for ANDROVISION with Leja chambers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schulze M, Nitsche-Melkus E, Jakop U, Jung M, Waberski D. New trends in production management in European pig AI centers. Theriogenology. 2019;137:88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Waberski D, Riesenbeck A, Schulze M, Weitze KF, Johnson L. Application of preserved boar semen for artificial insemination: Past, present and future challenges. Theriogenology. 2019;137:2–7. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.030. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robinson JAB, Buhr MM. Impact of genetic selection on management of boar replacement. Theriogenology. 2005;63:668–678. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brito LFC, 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 MM. 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