ArticleBiomicrofluidics2020
Effect of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa.
Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Update on Semen Physiology, Technologies, and Selection Techniques for the Advancement of In Vitro Equine Embryo Production: Section II.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of microfluidics in artificial reproductive technologies for manipulation or assessment of spermatozoa is unique in the sense that it is not always an end point measurement and the sample may be used afterward. During microfluidic processing, spermatozoa are exposed to shear stress, which may harm viability and functioning of spermatozoa. The shear stresses during general microfluidic processing steps were calculated and compared to estimated shear stresses during ejaculation. The viability of boar and bull spermatozoa after microfluidic processing was studied and compared to the typical handling method (centrifugation) and to a control (the sample in a tube at the same temperature). The boar spermatozoa showed a small but significant decrease in viability of 6% after microfluidic handling. Bull spermatozoa proved to be less susceptible to shear stress and were not significantly affected by microfluidic processing. These data indicate that the impact of microfluidic processing on the viability of boar and bull spermatozoa is less than the literature values reported for flow cytometry and comparable to the impact of centrifugation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.