Sorting for X- and Y-sperm populations based on differences in DNA content by flow cytometry was recommended for improving the selection of X- and Y-sperm and it is widely used in livestock animals. The X-sperm swims more slowly and has a longer life span than Y-sperm. The X-bearing sperm (X-sperm) in bovine is larger and longer than the Y-bearing sperm (Y-sperm), having 3.8 % more DNA. In the process of spermatogenesis, X- and Y-sperm can be produced, and the sex of the embryo is determined by the chromosome of the sperm. Sex is determined by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome in mammals. There has been great interest in sex pre-selection in bovine, and gained clear economic benefits and management advantages. The technology of controlling the sex of mammalian offspring is of great importance in the livestock industry. These results demonstrate that MBCD can inhibit viability of spermatozoa in frozen-thawed bovine semen (for X-sperm, especially). Methyl-beta-cyclodextrin enhances damage of sperm in frozen-thawed bovine semen, and X-sperm is more sensitive than Y-sperm in cell damage. Also, acrosome damage of X-sperm was significantly higher than Y-sperm ( p < 0.05). Viability of X-sperm was significantly lower than that of Y-sperm ( p < 0.05). Moreover, we sorted X- and Y-sperm from frozen-thawed bovine semen for observing the viability and acrosome damage on the separated X- and Y-sperm after MBCD treatment. Sperm viability in frozen-thawed semen was decreased by MBCD ( p < 0.05), also the acrosome damage of sperm was significantly increased ( p < 0.05). Moreover, X- and Y-sperm in frozen-thawed bovine semen were sorted by flow cytometry after Hoechst 33342-dyed, and the viability and acrosome damage of sperms were analyzed. The sperms were evaluated for viability and acrosome damage using flow cytometry. The bovine sperm treated with MBCD fresh solution (0, 1, 5, 10, and 20 mM). The semen was collected from ten healthy bulls of proven fertility by an artificial vagina. Hence the question: how can we get reasonable performance in Swift without losing the safety nets?Įdit 2: I did some more benchmarking, with very simple loops along the lines of for i in 0.The regulation of methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (MBCD) on cryodamage on X- and Y-sperm during cryopreservation of semen was investigated. And in Clang and GCC we have got -ftrapv for checking (signed) integer overflows, and it is not that slow, either. Remember that Java already checks for array bounds, and in typical cases, the slowdown is by a factor much less than 2. Of course, the safety nets have some impact on the performance, but they should not make the programs 100 times slower. So -Ofast is not what we want the whole point of Swift is that we have the safety nets in place.
Beta sorted3 code#
For example, with -Ofast the following Swift code runs silently without crashing (and prints out some garbage): let n = 10000000 What is wrong here? I could understand some performance loss in comparison with C++, but not a 10-fold slowdown in comparison with pure Python.Įdit: weather noticed that changing -O3 to -Ofast makes this code run almost as fast as the C++ version! However, -Ofast changes the semantics of the language a lot - in my testing, it disabled the checks for integer overflows and array indexing overflows. In Swift it takes 6s if I compile it with the following command: xcrun swift -O3 -sdk `xcrun -show-sdk-path -sdk macosx`Īnd it takes as much as 88s if I compile it with the following command: xcrun swift -O0 -sdk `xcrun -show-sdk-path -sdk macosx` In Python, it takes 0.6s (no tricks, just y = sorted(x) for a list of integers). In C++, a similar operation takes 0.06s on my computer. The relevant part is here: let n = 1000000 After digging deeper I realized that one of the bottlenecks was something as simple as sorting arrays.
I was implementing an algorithm in Swift Beta and noticed that the performance was very poor.
0 kommentar(er)
