发展流式细胞术以精确评估两栖动物精子活力:技术报告。

IF 2.1
Leah Jacobs, Talisin Hammond, Natalie Calatayud, Patricia Byrne, Thomas Jensen
{"title":"发展流式细胞术以精确评估两栖动物精子活力:技术报告。","authors":"Leah Jacobs, Talisin Hammond, Natalie Calatayud, Patricia Byrne, Thomas Jensen","doi":"10.1071/RD24117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Context In the past decade, flow cytometry has become a useful tool for evaluating cellular viability characteristics for non-domestic animals such as non-human primates, marine animals, and birds. This technology has the potential to vastly improve sperm-quality assessments, concentration counts and cell sorting in a more time-efficient and reliable manner. Aims The study aimed to validate the efficacy of using flow cytometry for amphibian sperm by comparing its results with those obtained through traditional means of sperm-quality assessment. Methods Sperm samples were collected from testes macerates of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis ) and subjected to both flow cytometry and microscopy analyses. Flow cytometry allowed for the simultaneous assessment of sperm viability and concentration by using fluorescent probes, whereas microscopy provided a traditional means of assessing sperm characteristics. Key results Sperm concentrations measured by flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy were highly correlated, although flow cytometry methods estimated higher concentrations. Sperm viability measured by flow cytometry and that measured by fluorescent microscopy were not significantly correlated and were significantly different, varying by only ~8% in viability, on average. Conclusions Although flow cytometry overestimated concentration and live/dead assessments, the discrepancies were slight enough to indicate that flow cytometry can still be a valuable method for assessing amphibian sperm. Implications These results validated the utility of flow cytometry as a reliable tool for assessing amphibian sperm viability and concentration, offering a promising alternative to traditional, time-consuming methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":516117,"journal":{"name":"Reproduction, fertility, and development","volume":"37 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing flow cytometry for precise evaluation of amphibian sperm viability: technical report.\",\"authors\":\"Leah Jacobs, Talisin Hammond, Natalie Calatayud, Patricia Byrne, Thomas Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/RD24117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Context In the past decade, flow cytometry has become a useful tool for evaluating cellular viability characteristics for non-domestic animals such as non-human primates, marine animals, and birds. This technology has the potential to vastly improve sperm-quality assessments, concentration counts and cell sorting in a more time-efficient and reliable manner. Aims The study aimed to validate the efficacy of using flow cytometry for amphibian sperm by comparing its results with those obtained through traditional means of sperm-quality assessment. Methods Sperm samples were collected from testes macerates of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis ) and subjected to both flow cytometry and microscopy analyses. Flow cytometry allowed for the simultaneous assessment of sperm viability and concentration by using fluorescent probes, whereas microscopy provided a traditional means of assessing sperm characteristics. Key results Sperm concentrations measured by flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy were highly correlated, although flow cytometry methods estimated higher concentrations. Sperm viability measured by flow cytometry and that measured by fluorescent microscopy were not significantly correlated and were significantly different, varying by only ~8% in viability, on average. Conclusions Although flow cytometry overestimated concentration and live/dead assessments, the discrepancies were slight enough to indicate that flow cytometry can still be a valuable method for assessing amphibian sperm. Implications These results validated the utility of flow cytometry as a reliable tool for assessing amphibian sperm viability and concentration, offering a promising alternative to traditional, time-consuming methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516117,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproduction, fertility, and development\",\"volume\":\"37 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproduction, fertility, and development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/RD24117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproduction, fertility, and development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/RD24117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年中,流式细胞术已经成为评估非家动物(如非人灵长类动物、海洋动物和鸟类)细胞活力特征的有用工具。这项技术有潜力极大地改善精子质量评估、浓度计数和细胞分选,以一种更省时、更可靠的方式。目的通过将流式细胞术与传统精子质量评估方法的结果进行比较,验证流式细胞术在两栖动物精子检测中的有效性。方法采集非洲爪蛙(Xenopus laevis)睾丸浸没液中的精子,进行流式细胞术和显微镜分析。流式细胞术允许使用荧光探针同时评估精子活力和浓度,而显微镜提供了评估精子特征的传统方法。流式细胞术和荧光显微镜测量的精子浓度高度相关,尽管流式细胞术估计的浓度更高。流式细胞术测定的精子活力与荧光显微镜测定的精子活力无显著相关,差异显著,平均仅相差约8%。结论虽然流式细胞术高估了精子浓度和活/死评估,但差异很小,表明流式细胞术仍然是一种有价值的两栖动物精子评估方法。这些结果验证了流式细胞术作为评估两栖动物精子活力和浓度的可靠工具的实用性,为传统的、耗时的方法提供了一种有希望的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing flow cytometry for precise evaluation of amphibian sperm viability: technical report.

Context In the past decade, flow cytometry has become a useful tool for evaluating cellular viability characteristics for non-domestic animals such as non-human primates, marine animals, and birds. This technology has the potential to vastly improve sperm-quality assessments, concentration counts and cell sorting in a more time-efficient and reliable manner. Aims The study aimed to validate the efficacy of using flow cytometry for amphibian sperm by comparing its results with those obtained through traditional means of sperm-quality assessment. Methods Sperm samples were collected from testes macerates of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis ) and subjected to both flow cytometry and microscopy analyses. Flow cytometry allowed for the simultaneous assessment of sperm viability and concentration by using fluorescent probes, whereas microscopy provided a traditional means of assessing sperm characteristics. Key results Sperm concentrations measured by flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy were highly correlated, although flow cytometry methods estimated higher concentrations. Sperm viability measured by flow cytometry and that measured by fluorescent microscopy were not significantly correlated and were significantly different, varying by only ~8% in viability, on average. Conclusions Although flow cytometry overestimated concentration and live/dead assessments, the discrepancies were slight enough to indicate that flow cytometry can still be a valuable method for assessing amphibian sperm. Implications These results validated the utility of flow cytometry as a reliable tool for assessing amphibian sperm viability and concentration, offering a promising alternative to traditional, time-consuming methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信