Effects of Linolenic Acid supplementation on Seminal Attributes of Labrador during in-vitro Storage at 4°C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the probable effects of the linolenic acid addition in different levels to the Tris based egg yolk plasma (T-EYP) extender in Labrador dog semen on spermatozoa quality during storage of semen at 4°C for 0, 24,48 and 72 hours. The collected semen from all dogs was mixed together and diluted with T-EYP. The diluted pooled semen was divided into 5 treatments (T). T1 was a control group without any linolenic acid addition. For T2 to T5 groups 0.5 ng/ml , 1.5 ng/ml, 2.5 ng/ml and 3.5 ng/ml linolenic acid were added respectively. Treatments were evaluated for sperm motility, sperm viability, morphological defect, acrosome integrity and membrane integrity after 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours of incubation at 4°C. The evaluations of spermatozoa immediately after semen collection, were revealed no significant differences among values of treatment groups, whereas after incubating the treatments for different spans of time, the sperm progressive motility and viability rates for groups supplemented with linolenic acid were significantly (P<0.05) higher than that of the control group. Motility, viability and acrosome integrity were higher in 2.5ng/ml linolenic acid concentration. According to the results of this study we conclude that, the most excellent level of linolenic acid for supplementation to the extended semen of dog in order to improve the sperm motility and viability plus to reduce the morphological defect rates of the spermatozoa up to 72 hours storage time at 4°C is 2.5 ng/ml.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".