MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917652621 · doi:10.1111/rda.13420

Dog sperm swimming parameters analysed by computer‐assisted semen analysis of motility reveal major breed differences

2019· article· en· W2917652621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Valverde, Sandra Arnau, Almudena García‐Molina, Daznia Bompart, Marcos Campos, Eduardo R. S. Roldán, Carles Soler

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction in Domestic Animals · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional para Investigaciones Científicas y TecnológicasMinisterio de Ciencia Tecnología y TelecomunicacionesInstituto Tecnológico de Costa RicaMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsBreedSemen analysisSemenSpermAndrologyMotilitySperm motilityBiologyAnimal scienceMedicineGeneticsInfertilityPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contents Dogs have undergone an intensive artificial selection process ever since the beginning of their relationship with humans. As a consequence, a wide variety of well‐defined breeds exist today. Due to the enormous variation in dog phenotypes and the unlikely chance of gene exchange between them, the question arises as to whether they should still be regarded as a single species or, perhaps, they be considered as different taxa that possess different reproductive traits. The aim of this study was therefore to characterize some male reproductive traits, focusing on kinematic characteristics of dog spermatozoa from several breeds. Thirty‐seven dogs from the following breeds were used: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Labrador Retriever, Spanish Mastiff, Valencian Rat Hunting Dog, British Bulldog and Chihuahua. Semen samples were obtained via manual stimulation and diluted to a final sperm concentration of 50 million/ml, and they were subsequently analysed by the computer assisted semen analysis (CASA‐Mot) ISAS ® v1 system. Eight kinematic parameters were evaluated automatically. All parameters showed significant different values among breeds and among individuals within each breed. The fastest sperm cells were those of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and the slowest were recorded in Chihuahuas. The intra‐male coefficient of variation (CV) was higher than the inter‐male CV for all breeds with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier showing the lowest values. When taking into consideration the cells by animal and breed, discriminant analyses showed a high capability to predict the breed. Cluster analyses showed a hierarchical classification very close to that obtained after phylogenetic studies with genome markers. In conclusion, future workers on dog spermatozoa should bear in mind major differences between breeds and realize that results cannot be extrapolated from one to another. Because sperm characteristics are associated with breed diversity, dogs may represent a good model to examine changes in reproductive parameters associated with selection processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction in Domestic AnimalsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207