Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:08:49.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nigrosin eosin as a stain for differentiating live and dead spermatozoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Campbell ,
H. M. Dott  and
T. D. Glover
R. C. Campbell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
H. M. Dott
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Reproductive Physiology and Biochemistry, Animal Research Station, Cambridge
T. D. Glover
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The proportion of stained spermatozoa in a ram semen-nigrosin-eosin mixture has been found to increase with the time of exposure to the stain. Five minutes is considered to be a suitable interval for practical use.

2. The value obtained for the proportion of dead cells can be considerably affected by the selection of fields that are easy to count; fields should be chosen at random.

3. The variation between, counts on the same smear is much larger than that expected for binomial proportions. This may be due partly to the ‘clumping’ of the dead spermatozoa and partly to the difficulties of interpretation caused by the presence of many partially stained cells.

4. A significant difference was found between the estimates of the proportion dead obtained by the two experimental workers; this is thought to be due to a difference of interpretation of ‘stained’ and ‘unstained’.

5. Tables are given by which to determine the approximate accuracy of counts made on a range of numbers of spermatozoa, smears and subsamples, separate tables being necessary for ram, boar and bull semen.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , October 1956 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bangham, A. D. & Hancock, J. L. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. W. H., Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L. & Walton, A. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, E. (1950). Om Bedømmelsen of Tyresperma. Mortensen: Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Brochart, M. (1953). Proc. Soc. Fert. 5, 82.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L. & Rothschild, Lord (1953). J. Exp. Biol. 30, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, T. D. (1955). Vet. Rec. 67, 36.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1952). J. Exp. Biol. 29, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1953). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. & Shaw, I. G. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasley, J. F., Easley, G. T. & McKenzie, F. F. (1942). Anat. Rec. 82, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, D. T., Squiers, C. D., Bogart, R. & Oloufa, M. M. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, Lord & Barnes, H. (1954). Nature, Lond., 173, 636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. W. & Bearden, H. J. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirTaylor, G. I. (1951). Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 209, 447Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1927). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 101, 303.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1945). The Technique of Artificial Insemination, 3rd ed.London: Holborn Surgical lost. Co.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1952). J. Exp. Biol. 29, 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar