-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
A comparison of quality parameters of fresh feline ejaculates collected by three different collection techniques
K. Jelinkova, R. Vitasek, R. Novotny, A. Bartoskova,
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
PubMed
29782062
DOI
10.1111/rda.13205
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- analýza spermatu veterinární MeSH
- ejakulace * MeSH
- elektrická stimulace * MeSH
- katetrizace močového měchýře veterinární MeSH
- kočky MeSH
- kryoprezervace veterinární MeSH
- medetomidin farmakologie MeSH
- odběr biologického vzorku veterinární MeSH
- orchiektomie veterinární MeSH
- uchování spermatu veterinární MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- kočky MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
The aim of our study was to compare the quality parameters of fresh feline ejaculates collected by three different techniques-urethral catheterization after medetomidine administration (CT), electroejaculation (EE) and epididymal slicing after orchiectomy (EP). A total of 34 adult male cats (Felis catus) were included in the study. In all male cats, the sperm collection was performed under general anaesthesia by three collection methods in the following order: urethral catheterization, electroejaculation and epididymal slicing. The sperm parameters evaluated were as follows: volume, motility, viability, sperm concentration, total sperm count and morphological examination. The highest quality semen parameters were achieved using EE. The comparison of results of the evaluated sperm quality parameters from EE and EP showed significant differences only in one case-the percentage of head abnormalities and lower percentage of head abnormalities were achieved using EE compared to EP: 8.5% (3.0%-21.0%) versus 10.0% (4.0%-22.0%). Semen collected by CT rendered the lowest quality samples when compared to sperm samples collected by EE and EP, especially with respect to the motility and total sperm count which were significantly lower (p < 0.001). Our study showed that sperm samples collected by EE and EP result in better quality of feline ejaculates compared to collection by CT from sperm samples collected from the same male cats. These results demonstrate the necessity of further research of urethral catheterization as a novel technique of semen collection in male cats.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19000720
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190115123129.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190107s2018 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1111/rda.13205 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29782062
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Jelinkova, Klara $u Department of Reproduction, Small Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 245 12
- $a A comparison of quality parameters of fresh feline ejaculates collected by three different collection techniques / $c K. Jelinkova, R. Vitasek, R. Novotny, A. Bartoskova,
- 520 9_
- $a The aim of our study was to compare the quality parameters of fresh feline ejaculates collected by three different techniques-urethral catheterization after medetomidine administration (CT), electroejaculation (EE) and epididymal slicing after orchiectomy (EP). A total of 34 adult male cats (Felis catus) were included in the study. In all male cats, the sperm collection was performed under general anaesthesia by three collection methods in the following order: urethral catheterization, electroejaculation and epididymal slicing. The sperm parameters evaluated were as follows: volume, motility, viability, sperm concentration, total sperm count and morphological examination. The highest quality semen parameters were achieved using EE. The comparison of results of the evaluated sperm quality parameters from EE and EP showed significant differences only in one case-the percentage of head abnormalities and lower percentage of head abnormalities were achieved using EE compared to EP: 8.5% (3.0%-21.0%) versus 10.0% (4.0%-22.0%). Semen collected by CT rendered the lowest quality samples when compared to sperm samples collected by EE and EP, especially with respect to the motility and total sperm count which were significantly lower (p < 0.001). Our study showed that sperm samples collected by EE and EP result in better quality of feline ejaculates compared to collection by CT from sperm samples collected from the same male cats. These results demonstrate the necessity of further research of urethral catheterization as a novel technique of semen collection in male cats.
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 _2
- $a kočky $7 D002415
- 650 _2
- $a kryoprezervace $x veterinární $7 D015925
- 650 12
- $a ejakulace $7 D004542
- 650 12
- $a elektrická stimulace $7 D004558
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a medetomidin $x farmakologie $7 D020926
- 650 _2
- $a orchiektomie $x veterinární $7 D009919
- 650 _2
- $a analýza spermatu $x veterinární $7 D055101
- 650 _2
- $a uchování spermatu $x veterinární $7 D012662
- 650 _2
- $a odběr biologického vzorku $x veterinární $7 D013048
- 650 _2
- $a katetrizace močového měchýře $x veterinární $7 D014546
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Vitasek, Roman $u Department of Reproduction, Small Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Novotny, Robert $u Department of Reproduction, Ruminant and Swine Clinic, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Bartoskova, Alena $u Institute of Life-Long Education, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00007347 $t Reproduction in domestic animals Zuchthygiene $x 1439-0531 $g Roč. 53, č. 5 (2018), s. 1068-1074
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29782062 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190107 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190115123339 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1364739 $s 1038843
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 53 $c 5 $d 1068-1074 $e 20180521 $i 1439-0531 $m Reproduction in domestic animals $n Reprod Domest Anim $x MED00007347
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190107