Evaluation of stallion sperm motility with ImageJ using a cell phone camera and a light microscope
| Autor: | G.P. Freitag, L.G.F. Lima, L.E. Kozicki, L.C.S. Felicio, R.R. Weiss |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Semen
Semen analysis Biology smartphone SF1-1100 total motility law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Optical microscope motilidade total law medicine sêmen Sperm motility 030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine General Veterinary medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry 0402 animal and dairy science semen 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences análise do sêmen 040201 dairy & animal science Animal culture horse cavalos sperm analysis Nuclear medicine business |
| Zdroj: | Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia v.72 n.6 2020 Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Vol 72, Iss 6, Pp 2007-2016 (2020) Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Volume: 72, Issue: 6, Pages: 2007-2016, Published: 27 NOV 2020 |
| ISSN: | 1678-4162 0102-0935 |
| Popis: | This study aimed to determine the accuracy of assessing stallion sperm motility using a light microscope, a cell phone camera, and a free computer-assisted semen analysis (FCASA) package for ImageJ. The total motility of frozen (n=22) and cooled (n=48) equine semen was determined by FCASA and compared to the results of subjective visual analysis (SVA) by two technicians. Frozen samples were also evaluated by a commercial computer-assisted semen analysis (CCASA) system. The Friedman test revealed no significant differences (P>0.05) between cooled samples analyzed by FCASA (38.0) and SVA (technician 1, 40.0; technician 2, 40.0), nor between frozen samples analyzed by FCASA (23.36 ± 15.9), SVA (25.5 ± 18.8 and 25.8 ± 18.5), and CCASA (25.2 ± 18.3). However, mean FCASA results were underestimated by 7.2% compared with CCASA. The correlation between FCASA and CCASA was significant and strong (P0,05) entre as 48 amostras analisadas com CASAF (38,0) e SVA de dois avaliadores (40,0 e 40,0). A comparação das 22 amostras congeladas entre CASAF (23,36±15,9), SVA (25,5±18,8 e 25,8±18,5) e CCASA (25,2±18,3) também não resultou em diferença estatística, sendo que a média dos resultados obtidos com CASAF subestimou a obtida com o CCASA em 7,2%. A correlação entre CASAF e CCASA foi significativamente elevada (r=0,95, P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|