Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides
Worldwide, various counting chambers and computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) devices are in use. The semen’s concentration can vary depending on the depth of the counting chamber and how it is loaded. The study’s objectives were to analyze the effects of various counting chambers on semen concen...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Veterinary Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1283128/full |
| _version_ | 1797663246691336192 |
|---|---|
| author | Eser Akal |
| author_facet | Eser Akal |
| author_sort | Eser Akal |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Worldwide, various counting chambers and computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) devices are in use. The semen’s concentration can vary depending on the depth of the counting chamber and how it is loaded. The study’s objectives were to analyze the effects of various counting chambers on semen concentration results using a GoldCyto® slide and a glass slide in the CASA system and to ascertain the precision of concentration measurements made using glass slides on CASA. The study’s control group was composed of samples with known concentrations (72–80 million sperm/mL) as determined by a spectrophotometer. A total of 21 frozen straws from the same bull of the same date were thawed at 37°C for 30 s and loaded into two different sperm-counting chambers (GoldCyto® slide and glass slide). The sample semen placed in the sperm counting chambers was 5 μL and the same value was entered in the CASA software as 5 μL. Measurements were done and evaluated in 5 different areas. According to the data we obtained, using the glass slide were statistically lower than the spectrophotometer (p < 0.001). GoldCyto® slide results were consistent with spectrophotometer results. Consequently, measurements with GoldCyto® slides in the CASA had consistent results, while measurements with glass slides were inconsistent. It was concluded that GoldCyto® slides are more suitable than glass slides in the concentration examinations of semen. Therefore, more study is needed to optimize the use of glass slides. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T19:11:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-13bcf375238241f5a7e1f324900bf2ae |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2297-1769 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T19:11:46Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Veterinary Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-13bcf375238241f5a7e1f324900bf2ae2023-10-09T10:40:25ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Veterinary Science2297-17692023-10-011010.3389/fvets.2023.12831281283128Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slidesEser AkalWorldwide, various counting chambers and computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) devices are in use. The semen’s concentration can vary depending on the depth of the counting chamber and how it is loaded. The study’s objectives were to analyze the effects of various counting chambers on semen concentration results using a GoldCyto® slide and a glass slide in the CASA system and to ascertain the precision of concentration measurements made using glass slides on CASA. The study’s control group was composed of samples with known concentrations (72–80 million sperm/mL) as determined by a spectrophotometer. A total of 21 frozen straws from the same bull of the same date were thawed at 37°C for 30 s and loaded into two different sperm-counting chambers (GoldCyto® slide and glass slide). The sample semen placed in the sperm counting chambers was 5 μL and the same value was entered in the CASA software as 5 μL. Measurements were done and evaluated in 5 different areas. According to the data we obtained, using the glass slide were statistically lower than the spectrophotometer (p < 0.001). GoldCyto® slide results were consistent with spectrophotometer results. Consequently, measurements with GoldCyto® slides in the CASA had consistent results, while measurements with glass slides were inconsistent. It was concluded that GoldCyto® slides are more suitable than glass slides in the concentration examinations of semen. Therefore, more study is needed to optimize the use of glass slides.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1283128/fullCASAglass slideGoldCyto ® slidesperm concentrationsperm |
| spellingShingle | Eser Akal Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides Frontiers in Veterinary Science CASA glass slide GoldCyto ® slide sperm concentration sperm |
| title | Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides |
| title_full | Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides |
| title_short | Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides |
| title_sort | evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer assisted sperm analysis with goldcyto r slides and glass slides |
| topic | CASA glass slide GoldCyto ® slide sperm concentration sperm |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1283128/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT eserakal evaluationofspermcountingaccuracyoncomputerassistedspermanalysiswithgoldcytoslidesandglassslides |