Kinematic sub-populations in bull spermatozoa: a comparison of classical and bayesian approaches

dc.contributor.authorVíquez, Luis
dc.contributor.authorBarquero, Vinicio
dc.contributor.authorSole, Carles
dc.contributor.authorRoldan, Eduardo R.S.
dc.contributor.authorValverde, Anthony
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-01T22:16:07Z
dc.date.available2022-09-01T22:16:07Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-26
dc.descriptionArtículo científicoes
dc.description.abstractThe ejaculate is heterogenous and sperm sub-populations with different kinematic patterns can be identified in various species. Nevertheless, although these sub-populations are statistically well defined, the statistical differences are not always relevant. The aim of the present study was to characterize kinematic sub-populations in sperm from two bovine species, and diluted with different commercial extenders, and to determine the statistical relevance of sub-populations through Bayesian analysis. Semen from 10 bulls was evaluated after thawing. An ISAS®v1 computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA)-Mot system was employed with an image acquisition rate of 50 Hz and ISAS®D4C20 counting chambers. Sub-populations of motile spermatozoa were characterized using multivariate procedures such as principal components (PCs) analysis and clustering methods (k-means model). Four different sperm sub-populations were identified from three PCs that involved progressiveness, velocity, and cell undulatory movement. The proportions of the different sperm sub-populations varied with the extender used and in the two species. Despite a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between extenders, the Bayesian analysis confirmed that only one of them (Triladyl®) presented relevant differences in kinematic patterns when compared with Tris-EY and OptiXcell®. Extenders differed in the proportion of sperm cells in each of the kinematic sub-populations. Similar patterns were identified in Bos taurus and Bos indicus. Bayesian results indicate that sub-populations SP1, SP2, and SP3 were different for PC criteria and these differences were relevant. For velocity, linearity, and progressiveness, the SP4 did not show a relevant difference regarding the other sperm sub-populations. The classical approach of clustering or sperm subpopulation thus may not have a direct biological meaning. Therefore, the biological relevance of sperm sub-populations needs to be reevaluated.es
dc.identifier.doidoi.org/10.3390/biology9060138
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2238/13875
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherBiology 2020es
dc.rightsacceso abiertoes
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectCinemáticaes
dc.subjectMotilidades
dc.subjectFertilidad -- Ganadoes
dc.subjectEspecies bovinases
dc.subjectToro -- Fertilidades
dc.subjectCalidad del semenes
dc.subjectKinematicses
dc.subjectMotilityes
dc.subjectFertility--Cattlees
dc.subjectBovine specieses
dc.subjectBull -- Fertilityes
dc.subjectSemen qualityes
dc.subjectResearch Subject Categories::FORESTRY, AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES and LANDSCAPE PLANNING::Animal productiones
dc.titleKinematic sub-populations in bull spermatozoa: a comparison of classical and bayesian approacheses
dc.typeartículo originales

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PI19_BIB307961_Kinematic_Sub-Populations....pdf
Size:
515.79 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.77 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:

Collections