ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Comparative assessment of thawing methods for frozen rooster sperm.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of sperm kinematics, physical integrity and malondialdehyde levels as indicators of sperm freezability in Pradu Hang Dam chicken.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Statistical Assessment of Post-Thaw Semen Quality in Two Conserved Norwegian Rooster Lines.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cryopreservation, widely used in commercial poultry breeding, often reduces sperm motility, viability, and DNA integrity due to cryopreservation-induced damage. This study evaluates the effects of water bath and dry thawing systems on the post-thaw quality of rooster spermatozoa, addressing these challenges and exploring methods to enhance sperm quality. Methods: The study compared the performance of water bath and dry thawing systems, both operated at 37°C for 30 s. Post-thaw assessments included sperm motility, morphology, kinematic characteristics, and DNA integrity. Key parameters such as total motility, progressive motility, curvilinear velocity (VCL), average path velocity (VAP), straight-line velocity (VSL), viability, morphological abnormalities, and DNA damage metrics were analyzed. Results: The dry thawing system significantly improved sperm quality compared to the water bath method. Total motility and progressive motility were higher in the dry thawing system (82.38 and 33.18%, respectively) compared to the water bath method (68.14 and 21.20%). Kinematic parameters, including VCL (79.41 vs. 66.49 μm/s), VAP (47.52 vs. 37.42 μm/s), and VSL (27.18 vs. 21.59 μm/s), were superior in the dry thawing system. Viability improved (82.2 vs. 73.7%), while morphological abnormalities were reduced (23.9 vs. 35.8%). DNA integrity metrics, such as Tail DNA (%; 77.37 vs. 81.11%) and Olive Tail Moment (15.28 vs. 16.93), also showed reduced damage. Discussion: The dry thawing system offers significant operational advantages, including portability, contamination-free operation, and consistent temperature maintenance, making it ideal for on-site applications. These features, combined with its ability to enhance sperm quality, highlight the dry thawing system as an effective alternative for poultry breeding. Its adoption could improve artificial insemination outcomes and address challenges associated with cryopreservation-induced damage during thawing.
Indexed as
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.