Acta Vet. Brno 2012, 81: 195-199
https://doi.org/10.2754/avb201281020195
Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology
References
1. JB, Giżejewski Z 2007: Plemnik plemnikowi nierówny – fizjologia czy patologia? [Differences in spermatozoon: physiology or pathology?] Med Wet 63: 1408-1411
2. E 1981: Ocena morfologiczna wad plemników buhaja II. Propozycja nowej klasyfikacji wad plemników [The morphological estimation of the spermatozoa defects of bull II]. Med Wet 37: 239-242
3. B, Kemp B 1990: Factors influencing semen quality in pigs. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 40: 105-115
4. D, Goswami RN, Mili DC, Nath DR 2002: Effect of age of the sow and boar on reproduction performance. Indian Vet J 79: 615-616
5. R, Gider T, Kosec M 2005: Frequency of boar ejaculate collection and its influence on semen quality, pregnancy rate and litter size. Acta Vet Brno 74: 265-273
<https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200574020265>
6. M, Roldan ERS 1991: Sperm competition influences sperm size in mammals. Proc R, Soc Lond B Biol Sci 243: 181-185
<https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1991.0029>
7. M, Boersma A, Hoeflich A, Wolf E, Föll J, Aumüller TR, Braun AJ 2001: Objectively measured sperm motility and sperm head morphometry in boars (Sus scrofa): Relation to fertility and seminal plasma growth factors. J Androl 22: 104-110
8. S, Banaszewska D, Mielnicka C 2005: The effect of age on the morphometric sperm traits of domestic pigs. Cell Mol Biol Lett 1: 3-13
9. H, Reiner G, Krapoth I, Dzapo V 1998: Beziehungen zwischen Spermatozoenvolumen und Eberfruchtbarkeit. [Relations between spermatozoa volume and fertility in boars]. Arch Tierz 41: 65-73
10. GC, Sargeant GA, Yandell BS, Evenson DP, Parrish JJ 2001: Relationship of bull fertility to sperm nuclear shape. J Androl 22: 595-603
11. T, Van Soom A, Hoflack G, Maes D, Kruif A 2004: Automated sperm morphometry and morphology analysis of canine semen by the Hamilton-Thorne analyser. Theriogenology 62: 1292-1306
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.01.005>
12. F, Nứñez-Martínez I, Moran JM, Soler C, Muriel A, Rodríguez-Martínez H, Peña FJ 2007: Differences in boar sperm head shape and dimensions recorded by computer-assisted sperm morphometry are not related to chromatin integrity. Theriogenology 68: 196-203
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.04.052>
13. J, De Sousa LL, Mohnsen A 2004: Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Anim Reprod Sci 80: 121-130
<https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(03)00142-8>
14. J 2009: Effects influencing boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 110: 335-346
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.01.024>
15. RR 2005: Sperm competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 46-53
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.011>
16. A, Kondracki S, Banaszewska D 2009a: Morphometrical characteristics of spermatozoa in Polish Landrace boars with regard to the number of spermatozoa in an ejaculate. Rep Biol 9: 271-282
<https://doi.org/10.1016/S1642-431X(12)60031-X>
17. A, Kondracki S, Kowalewski D, Adamiak A, and Muczyńska E 2009b: Effect of seasonal factors on the ejaculate properties of crossbred Duroc x Pietrain and Pietrain x Duroc boars as well as purebred Duroc and Pietrain boars. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 53: 677-685
