324 ADJUSTING SPERM CONCENTRATION USED TO INSEMINATE SUPERSTIMULATED BEEF COWS, IN ORDER TO AVOID DECLINE IN EMBRYO PRODUCTION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The quantity and quality of semen may affect conception rate after artificial insemination (AI). The concentration of motile spermatozoa, after thawing, varies according to the sire and lot of frozen semen used. The minimum amount of spermatozoa required in a semen straw was determined to obtain pregnancy after a single AI of a non-superovulated animal. However, superstimulation of embryo donors results in the availability of many more oocytes (an average 10–20) for fertilization than in a non-superovulated female (1 oocyte). The purpose of the present work was to verify if by adjusting the concentration of motile spermatozoa, in straws with low sperm concentration, the percentage of viable embryos is comparable to those obtained using straws with high sperm concentration after thawing. Nelore cows (Bostaurusindicus) were superstimulated with a protocol termed P36 (Barros CM et al. 2003 Theriogenology 59, 524 abst), in which the ovulation is induced by exogenous LH (12.5 mg, Lutropin®, Vetrepharm, London, Ontario, Canada), administered 36 h after PGF2a. One sample of each lot of semen was analyzed by CASA (computer-assisted semen analysis), and motile sperm concentration, after thawing, was adjusted to a minimum of 25–30 × 106 spermatozoa, which is approximately 3 to 4 times higher than the sperm concentration used for a regular AI. Fixed-time AI (FTAI) was performed 12, 24, and sometimes 36 h after exogenous LH. The number of semen straws necessary to obtain at least 25 × 106 spermatozoa varied from 2 to 6 (Groups 2 to 6, respectively). Since at least two semen straws were used per animal, there is no Group 1. The number of FTAI was adjusted according to the number of straws used, i.e., 2 straws (FTAI 12 and 24 h after LH), and 3 or more straws (12, 24, and 36 h after LH). Mean total structures (oocytes, viable embryos and degenerate embryos), mean viable embryos per flushing, and viability rate (percentage of viable embryos/total structures) were, respectively: 12.2, 8.9, and 73.6% (Group 2, n = 19 flushings); 13.5, 9.6, and 70.9% (Group 3, n = 101); 13.3, 9.4, and 70.9% (Group 4, n = 22); 5.5, 4.0, and 72.7% (Group 5, n = 4); and 24.0, 13.0, and 54.2% (Group 6, n = 1). When the results from Groups 4, 5, and 6 were pooled, total structures, viable embryos, and viability rate were: 12.5, 8.7, and 69.8% (n = 27). The statistical analysis was performed using the ratio of viable embryos/total structures for each flushing, transformed in square root followed by arc sin. Data from groups 4, 5 and 6 were pooled before comparing to the other groups by ANOVA. In order to facilitate the comprehension of the results, data were presented as viability rate instead of means of arc sin. There was no difference when comparing pooled data from Groups 4, 5, and 6 with the other groups (2 or 3; P = 0.87; ANOVA). It is concluded that by adjusting the concentration of motile spermatozoa in straws with low sperm concentration (Groups 4, 5, and 6), the viability rates are comparable to those obtained using semen with high sperm concentration (Group 2 or 3). Nogueira has a fellowship from FAPESP (Sã Paulo).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».