Table 2.
W | Progressive motility % | Viability % | Normal morphology % | Sperm cell concentration 109/mL | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CoQ10 | CON | CoQ10 | CON | CoQ10 | CON | CoQ10 | CON | |
W0 | 72.20 ± 1.33 | 70.00 ± 1.84 | 82.40 ± 1.11 | 83.20 ± 1.45 | 83.60 ± 2.66 | 82.60 ± 1.88 | 2.22 ± 0.02 | 2.26 ± 0.55 |
W1 | 69.00 ± 1.77 | 69.00 ± 1.55 | 76.00 ± 1.44 | 79.80 ± 1.65 | 82.40 ± 0.87 | 82.40 ± 0.88 | 2.45 ± 0.01 | 2.33 ± 0.07 |
W2 | 73.00 ± 1.65 | 70.00 ± 1.75 | 81.00 ± 0.54 | 79.60 ± 2.33 | 83.00 ± 0.58 | 84.40 ± 0.94 | 2.21 ± 0.01 | 2.24 ± 0.05 |
W3 | 78.00 ± 1.33* | 73.00 ± 2.04 | 88.60 ± 1.27* | 81.00 ± 1.45 | 89.40 ± 0.84* | 83.60 ± 0.85 | 2.35 ± 0.01 | 2.26 ± 0.07 |
W4 | 79.00 ± 1.18* | 71.00 ± 1.58 | 90.40 ± 1.22* | 82.60 ± 1.05 | 88.40 ± 0.54* | 83.40 ± 0.88 | 2.29 ± 0.02 | 2.14 ± 0.04 |
W5 | 80.00 ± 2.14* | 68.00 ± 2.04 | 91.60 ± 1.44* | 81.60 ± 1.97 | 89.60 ± 0.44* | 83.00 ± 0.77 | 2.11 ± 0.01 | 1.97 ± 0.04 |
W6 | 81.00 ± 1.11* | 72.00 ± 1.52 | 91.60 ± 1.41* | 80.80 ± 1.55 | 91.40 ± 0.54* | 82.60 ± 0.68 | 2.45 ± 0.01* | 1.97 ± 0.05 |
W7 | 68.20 ± 1.44 | 69.20 ± 1.45 | 81.20 ± 1.21 | 79.80 ± 1.71 | 81.00 ± 0.74 | 83.00 ± 0.55 | 2.52 ± 0.02* | 2.03 ± 0.04 |
W8 | 73.60 ± 1.01 | 72.40 ± 1.12 | 78.60 ± 1.74 | 80.80 ± 1.57 | 84.40 ± 0.55 | 84.00 ± 0.28 | 2.61 ± 0.01* | 2.15 ± 0.05 |
THI = temperature humidity index, W = weeks. Data obtained as mean ± SEM. *Values in each measure are different at least at P < 0.05 between the two groups. The treatment effect (CoQ10 versus CON) showed a significant difference in sperm progressive motility % (P < 0.001), viability (P < 0.0001), and concentration (P < 0.0001), while the time effect showed a significant (P < 0.01) difference in sperm progressive motility, viability, normal morphology, and concentration