ReviewVeterinary medicine and science2026
The Impact of Different Equilibration Methods on the Cryopreservation Effectiveness of Boar Semen.
Review in Veterinary medicine and science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Boar semen cryopreservation is crucial for the porcine industry. The two-step (S2) is currently used for cryopreservation of boar semen. In this method, a cryoprotectant is added at 4°C to reduce its toxicity. Another method is the one-step (S1), which is easier, cheaper and reduces the need for equipment, but may increase the toxicity of cryoprotectant. This study compared S1 and S2 equilibration protocols, evaluating post-thaw total motility, viability, motion parameters, membrane integrity, antioxidant indicators, apoptosis and related gene expression. Results showed S2 had higher motility (p < 0.05), while S1 had greater average path velocity (p < 0.05), better plasma membrane integrity (p < 0.05), lower malondialdehyde (MDA) (p < 0.01), higher total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and catalase (CAT) (p < 0.01), lower superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.05) and reduced apoptosis (p < 0.05). S2 had higher Caspase-9, Bax and SOD-2 expression (p < 0.05). S1 shows superiority in membrane protection, antioxidant capacity and anti-apoptosis, despite slightly lower motility. It is a promising method for large-scale use with further refinement to enhance post-thaw motility.
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.