International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences
Subscribe to IJMMS
Full Name*
Email Address*

Article Number - 185D44F12


Vol.5(9), pp. 396-400 , September 2013
DOI: 10.5897/IJMMS11.110
ISSN: 2006-9723



Comparison of different methods for assessing sperm concentration in infertility workup: A review



K. Vijaya Kumar
  • K. Vijaya Kumar
  • Department of Anatomy, Governmentt Medical College, Jagdalpur – 494 005, Chhattisgarh, India.
  • Google Scholar
B. Ram Reddy
  • B. Ram Reddy
  • Department of Physiology, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, A.P., India.
  • Google Scholar
K. Sai Krishna
  • K. Sai Krishna
  • Department of Medicine, Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute, Enathur, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu, India.
  • Google Scholar







 Accepted: 31 July 2013  Published: 01 September 2013

Copyright © 2013 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0


 

Sperm count assessments form the essential component of the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of male fertility, according to guidelines of WHO (1992). The problem of subjective bias, inter and intra operator variability of reporting is discussed in this paper. The problem of inter operator variability has been improved and reproducibility has been made more objective with the introduction of computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) protocols. To overcome the stated limitations and achieve objective assessment with a high precision, a new technique called flow cytometry was developed. Different methods for the estimation of sperm concentrations like hemocytometry, spectrophotometry, microcells, plate reader, image analysis and finally flow cytometry are compared and contrasted. Their relative merits and demerits are discussed with a detailed review of literature. Methods for estimation of sperm concentration are discussed in this paper.

 

Key words: Sperm counts, semen analysis, flow cytometry.

 

Gony B, Keskes L, Kolbezen M, Lamarte A, Lornage J, Nomal N, Pitaval G, Simon O, Virant-Klun I, Spira A, Jouannet P (2000). Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentrations, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod. 15: 2360–2368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.11.2360
PMid:11056133
 
Auger J, Kunstmann JM, Czyglik F, Jouannet P (1995). Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 332:281–285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199502023320501
PMid:7816062
 
Brazil C, Swan SH, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Wang C, Redmon JB, Overstreet JW (2004a). Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J. Androl. 25:635–644.
PMid:15223853
 
Brazil C, Swan SH, Tollner CR, Treece C, Drobnis EZ, Wang C, Redmon JB, Overstreet JW (2004b). Quality control of laboratory methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J. Androl. 25:645–656.
PMid:15223854
 
Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebæk NE (1992). Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. Br. Med J. 305:609–613.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.305.6854.609
PMid:1393072 PMCid:PMC1883354
 
Christensen P, Stryhn H, Hansen C (2005). Discrepancies in the determination of sperm concentration using Burker-Turk, Thoma and Makler counting chambers. Theriogenology 63:992–1003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.05.026
PMid:15710187
 
Cooper TG, Neuwinger J, Bahrs S, Nieschlag E (1992). Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil. Steril. 58:172–178.
PMid:1624001
 
Davis RO, Katz DF (1992). Standardization and comparability of CASA instruments. J. Androl. 13:81–86.
PMid:1551809
 
Donoghue AM, Thistlethwaite D, Donoghue DJ, Kirby JD (1996). A new method for rapid determination of sperm concentration in turkey semen. Poultry Sci. 75:785–89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0750785
PMid:8737845
 
Eustache F, Jouannet P, Auger J (2001). Evaluation of flow cytometric methods to measure human sperm concentration. J. Androl. 22:558–567.
PMid:11451352
 
Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR (1980). Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 210:1131–1133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7444440
PMid:7444440
 
Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR (1982). Simultaneous measurement by flow cytometry of sperm cell viability and mitochondrial membrane potential related to cell motility. J. Histochem. Cytochem.30:279–280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/30.3.6174566
PMid:6174566
 
Evenson DP, Parks JE, Kaproth MT, Jost LK (1993). Physiology and management. Rapid determination on sperm cell concentration in bovine semen by flow cytometry. J. Dairy Sci. 76: 86–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77326-9
 
Fenton SE, Ax RL, Cowan CM, Coyle T, Gilbert GR, Lenz RW (1990). Validation and application of an assay for deoxyribonucleic acid to estimate concentrations of bull sperm. J. Dairy Sci. 73:3118–3125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)79000-5
 
Foote RH, Arriola J, Wall RJ (1978). Principles and procedures for photometric measurement of sperm cell concentration. In: Proceedings of the 7th Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination and Reproduction. Madison, Wis: Natl. Assoc. Anim. Breed. pp. 55–61.
 
Freund M, Carol B (1964). Factors affecting hemacytometer counts of sperm concentration in human semen. J. Reprod. Fertil. 8:149–155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.0080149
PMid:14209117
 
Garner DL, Johnson LA, Yue ST, Roth BL, Haugland RP (1994). Dual DNA staining assessment of bovine sperm viability using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. J. Androl. 15:620–629.
PMid:7721666
 
Garner DL, Johnson LA (1994). Viability assessment of mammalian sperm using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. Biol. Reprod. 53:276– 284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod53.2.276
 
Garner DL, Johnson LA (1995). Viability assessment of mammalian sperm using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. Biol. Reprod. 53:276–284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod53.2.276
PMid:7492679
 
Garner DL, Pinkel D, Johnson LA, Pace MM (1986). Assessment of spermatozoal function using dual fluorescent staining and flow cytometric analyses. Biol. Reprod. 34:127–138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod34.1.127
PMid:3955132
 
Garner DL, Thomas CA, Joerg HW, DeJarnette JM, Marshall CE (1997). Fluorometric assessments of mitochondrial function and viability in cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa. Biol. Reprod. 57:1401–1406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod57.6.1401
PMid:9408246
 
Gledhill BL, Lake S, Steinmetz LL, Gray JW, Crawford JR, Dean PN, Van Dilla MA (1976). Flow micro fluorometric analysis of sperm DNA content: Effect of cell shape on the fluorescence distribution. J. Cell Physiol. 87:367–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1040870312
PMid:56337
 
Graham JK, Kunze E, Hammerstedt RH (1990). Analysis of sperm cell viability, acrosomal integrity and mitochondrial function using flow cytometry. Biol. Reprod.43:55–60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod43.1.55
PMid:2393693
 
Graham JK (2001). Assessment of sperm quality: A flow cytometric approach. Anim Reprod Sci. 68:239–247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(01)00160-9
 
Graham JK (1994). In vitro assays of bull fertility. In: Proceedings of the 15th Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination and Reproduction. Milwaukee, Wis: Natl. Assoc. Anim. Breed. pp. 74–81.
 
Gravance CG, Garner DL, Baumber J, Ball BA (2000). Assessment of equine sperm mitochondrial function using JC-1. Theriogenology 53: 1691–1703.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00308-3
 
Hansen C, Christensen P, Stryhn H, Hedeboe AM, Rode M, Boe-Hansen G (2002). Validation of the FACSCount AF system for determination of sperm concentration in boar semen. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 37: 330–334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0531.2002.00367.x
PMid:12464070
 
Holt W, Watson PF, Curry M, Holt C (1994). Reproducibility of computer-aided semen analysis: Comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. Fertil. Steril. 62:1277–1282.
PMid:7958000
 
Krause W, Scho¨nha¨rl G, Brake A (1993). The variability of measuring sperm concentration and motility as determined by computer assisted image analysis and visual estimation. Andrologia 25:181–187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.1993.tb02707.x
PMid:8352426
 
Kroetsch T, Anzar M, Buhr MM (2009) Comparison of different methods for assessment of sperm concentration and membrane integrity with bull semen. J. Androl. 30(6):661-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.108.007500
PMid:19478330
 
Mahmoud AM, Depoorter B, Piens N, Comhaire FH (1997). The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. Fertil. Steril. 68:340–345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81526-9
 
Matson PL (1997). Clinical value of tests for assessing male infertility. Clin. Obstr. Gynaecol.11:641–654.
 
Morrell JM (1991). Applications of flow cytometry to artificial insemination: A review. Vet. Rec. 129:375–378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.129.17.375
PMid:1720909
 
Parks JE (1992). Applications of flow cytometry in semen processing and handling. In: Proceedings of the 14th Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination and Reproduction. Milwaukee, Wis: Natl. Assoc. Anim. Breed. pp. 12–17.
 
Prathalingam NS, Holt WV, Revell SG, Fazeli AR, Watson PF (2006). A novel method using fluorometry to evaluate sperm membrane integrity in bulls. In: Proceedings of the Society of Reproduction and Fertility.
 
Seaman EK, Goluboff E, BarChama N, Fisch H (1996). Accuracy of semen counting chambers as determined by the use of latex beads. Fertil. Steril. 66:662–665.
PMid:8816636
 
Sokol RZ, Shulman P, Paulson RJ (2000). Comparison of two methods for the measurement of sperm concentration. Fertil. Steril. 73:591–594.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00590-7
 
Thomas CA, Garner DL, DeJarnette JM, Marshall CE (1997). Fluorometric assessments of acrosomal integrity and viability in cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa. Biol. Reprod. 56:991–998.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod56.4.991
PMid:9096883
 
Tomlinson M, Turner J, Powell G, Sakkas D (2001). One-step disposable chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: how do they compare with the World Health Organization's recommended methods? Hum. Reprod. 16:121–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.1.121
PMid:11139549
 
Tsuji T, Okada H, Fujisawa M, Hamaguchi Y, Kamidono S (2002). Automated sperm concentration analysis with a new flow cytometry-based device, S-FCM. Am. J. Clin Pathol. 117:401–408.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1309/B8GY-R6NC-2CG1-108V
PMid:11888079
 
Vetter CM, Miller JE, Crawford LM, Armstrong MJ, Clair JH, Conner MW, Wise LD, Skopek TR (1998). Comparison of motility and membrane integrity to assess rat sperm viability. Reprod. Toxicol. 12:105–114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6238(97)00155-X
 
Woelders H (1991). Overview of in vitro methods for evaluation of semen quality. Reprod. Domest. Anim. Suppl.145–164.
 
World Health Organization (1992). Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 

 


APA (2013). Comparison of different methods for assessing sperm concentration in infertility workup: A review. International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 5(9), 396-400.
Chicago K. Vijaya Kumar, B. Ram Reddy and K. Sai Krishna. "Comparison of different methods for assessing sperm concentration in infertility workup: A review." International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 5, no. 9 (2013): 396-400.
MLA K. Vijaya Kumar, B. Ram Reddy and K. Sai Krishna. "Comparison of different methods for assessing sperm concentration in infertility workup: A review." International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 5.9 (2013): 396-400.
   
DOI 10.5897/IJMMS11.110
URL http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJMMS/article-abstract/185D44F12

Subscription Form