Comparison of the semen analysis results obtained from two branded computer-aided sperm analysis systems

Andrologia ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 315-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. A. Hu ◽  
J. C. Lu ◽  
Y. Shao ◽  
Y. F. Huang ◽  
N. Q. Lü
2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 867 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. T. Gallagher ◽  
D. J. Smith ◽  
J. C. Kirkman-Brown

The human semen sample carries a wealth of information of varying degrees of accessibility ranging from the traditional visual measures of count and motility to those that need a more computational approach, such as tracking the flagellar waveform. Although computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) options are becoming more widespread, the gold standard for clinical semen analysis requires trained laboratory staff. In this review we characterise the key attitudes towards the use of CASA and set out areas in which CASA should, and should not, be used and improved. We provide an overview of the current CASA landscape, discussing clinical uses as well as potential areas for the clinical translation of existing research technologies. Finally, we discuss where we see potential for the future of CASA, and how the integration of mathematical modelling and new technologies, such as automated flagellar tracking, may open new doors in clinical semen analysis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Best ◽  
M Kuchakulla ◽  
K Khodamoradi ◽  
T Lima ◽  
F Frech ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Is the SARS-CoV–2 virus present in human semen and what is the impact on semen parameters following an infection? Summary answer SARS-CoV–2 infection, though not detected in semen of recovered men, can affect TSN in ejaculate in the acute setting. What is known already Early epidemiological data has suggested that the primary mode of transmission is through respiratory droplets, but the presence of SARS-CoV–2 has been identified in other bodily fluids such as feces, urine, and semen. Study design, size, duration We prospectively recruited thirty men diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV–2 infection using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of pharyngeal swab specimens. Thirty semen samples from recovered men were obtained 11–64 days after testing positive for SAR-CoV–2 infection. The median duration between positive SAR-CoV–2 test and semen collection was 37 days (IQR=23). Participants/materials, setting, methods Semen samples were collected from each individual using mailed kits. Follow-up semen samples were done with mailed kits or in-person in office setting. Semen analysis and PCR was performed after samples were received. Main results and the role of chance The median total sperm number (TSN) in ejaculate was 12.5 million (IQR=53.1). When compared with age-matched SARS-CoV–2(-) men, TSN was lower among SARS-CoV–2(+) men (p = 0.0024). Five men completed a follow-up sperm analysis (median 3 months) and had a median TSN of 18 million (IQR=21.6). No RNA was detected by means of RT-PCR in the semen in 16 samples tested. Limitations, reasons for caution First, most of the semen samples came from non-severe men of whom were in the recovery stage and lacked symptoms. Additionally, our sample size was relatively small and overnight mail-in semen analysis kits were used during the acute phase of infection to minimize contact with positive subjects. Wider implications of the findings: Our findings suggest extremely low risk of viral transmission during sexual contact and assisted reproductive techniques, although further data need to be obtained. The impact on TSC in recovered men from SARS-CoV–2 infection is concerning, nevertheless long-term follow-up of these men is critical to determine the nadir of TSC. Trial registration number 20200401


2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. e12814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Wakimoto ◽  
Atsushi Fukui ◽  
Teruhito Kojima ◽  
Akiko Hasegawa ◽  
Minoru Shigeta ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Franco Dondero ◽  
Andrea Lenzi ◽  
Loredana Gandini

Semen analysis remains the most important diagnostic tool for the study of male infertility to date. For this reason, and because of the ease of carrying out this analysis, examination of seminal fluid should be among the first diagnostic steps in cases of suspected infertility, prior to subjecting the man’s partner to long and complex diagnostic tests. The efficacy of an examination of seminal fluid depends on the experience and ability of the seminologist, who must first undertake a subjective analysis of fundamental parameters such as motility and morphology. Moreover, laboratories specialized in such analyses may apply different criteria to the evaluation of sperm parameters, making it extremely difficult to compare tests carried out in different laboratories (1). In an attempt to resolve these problems of inconsistency, and in order to standardize laboratory techniques, a committee of experts from the WHO established guidelines for semen analysis in 1980 (an updated version was published in 1999) (2). In recent years, numerous other methods of semen analysis capable of providing in-depth diagnostic information on the fertilising capacity of spermatozoa have become available. The computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) system is a technique for sperm analysis designed to provide objective data on sperm motility (3). Because of persisting difficulties in software set-up (4), it should not be used for routine analysis, but rather as a research tool. At the same time, significant advances have been made in the study of sperm morphology through the use of scanning and transmission electron microscopes (5). Finally, within the past decade several tests capable of evaluating the integrity of sperm components, such as the membrane, acrosome, DNA, and nuclear protein, have been developed and put into use. These more complex and costly analytical tools should be considered of secondary or tertiary importance, and are to be carried out in specific cases only after standard semen analysis. Standard semen analysis remains the first and fundamental diagnostic tool.


2017 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Yu Wakimoto ◽  
Teruhito Kojima ◽  
Akiko Hasegawa ◽  
Atushi Fukui ◽  
Minoru Shigeta ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sharon T Mortimer ◽  
Christopher J De Jonge

Andrologia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. e13141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farren Hardneck ◽  
Gadieja Israel ◽  
Edmund Pool ◽  
Liana Maree

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
M. L. Mphaphathi ◽  
M. M. Seshoka ◽  
T. R. Netshirovha ◽  
Z. C. Raphalalani ◽  
N. Bovula ◽  
...  

Subjective semen evaluation using standard optical microscopy is the most common practice. Semen parameters routinely assessed are volume, concentration, progressive motility, and morphology. However, computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) represents an objective evaluation, sperm assessment that are reproducible and reliable. Such semen parameters have not been evaluated in Afrikaner, Brahman, and Bonsmara bulls’ semen. The present study evaluated the sperm motion and kinematics characteristics of semen from stud Afrikaner, Brahman, Bonsmara, and Nguni bulls using CASA technology. The electro-ejaculator was used for semen collection from Afrikaner (n = 11), Brahman (n = 7), Bonsmara (n = 10) and Nguni (n = 16) bulls of known and proven fertility. Semen was collected following 4 days of resting period. The bulls ranged between 5 and 6 years of age. After collection, the semen samples were immediately transferred to a thermo-flask and maintained at 37°C for further evaluation in the mobile laboratory (Nedambale, 2014). The CASA-Sperm Class Analyzer® system (Microptic, Barcelona, Spain) was used to evaluate sperm motion, velocity, and kinematic parameters or characteristics of raw/fresh semen from 4 cattle breeds. Data were analysed using GenStat® statistical programme (VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom). Treatment means were compared using one-way ANOVA. The total sperm motility rate was similar for all breeds: Afrikaner (92.2 ± 4.2), Brahman (90.7 ± 9.0), Bonsmara (93.9 ± 4.0), and Nguni (96.0 ± 2.7). However, Brahman and Afrikaner bull semen had higher sperm cells moving in a progressive motility of 57.3 and 45.6%, respectively, compared with other breeds (P < 0.05). Nguni, Afrikaner, and Bonsmara had the highest sperm cells moving in a rapid movement of 73.7, 72.4, and 67.4% (P > 0.05), respectively. The bulls sperm trajectories had a variation, as they were recorded to be irregular and not linear (P < 0.05). The straight-line sperm velocity (µm s−1), wobbling %, and amplitude of lateral head displacement % was similar for the 4 breeds (P > 0.05). In conclusion, CASA technology was a useful technique for assessing differences in sperm motion and kinematic (motility and velocity characteristics) among different bull breeds.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 449-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damiano Pizzol ◽  
Alessandro Bertoldo ◽  
Carlo Foresta

AbstractMale infertility is a problem that faces increasing interest, and the continuous development of assisted reproduction techniques solicits attempts to identify a precise diagnosis, in particular for idiopathic infertile couples and those undergoing assisted reproductive technique cycles. To date, diagnosis of male infertility is commonly based on standard semen analysis, but in many cases, this is not enough to detect any sperm abnormality. A better understanding of biomolecular issues and mechanism of damaged spermatogenesis and the refinement of the molecular techniques for sperm evaluation and selection are important advances that can lead to the optimization of diagnostic and therapeutic management of male and couple infertility. Faced with a growing number of new proposed techniques and diagnostic tests, it is fundamental to know which tests are already routinely used in the clinical practice and those that are likely to be used in the near future. This review focuses on the main molecular diagnostic techniques for male infertility and on newly developed methods that will probably be part of routine sperm analysis in the near future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document