Automation of human semen analysis using a novel artificial intelligence optical microscopic technology

Andrologia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashok Agarwal ◽  
Ralf Henkel ◽  
Chun‐Chia Huang ◽  
Maw‐Sheng Lee
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 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.


1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Comhaire
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 78-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
MS Srinivas ◽  
Vickram Sundaram ◽  
M Ramesh Pathy ◽  
TB Sridharan

ABSTRACT Aim To elucidate the concentration of the protein and cholesterol in different fractions of human semen from different infertile categories and comparing them with the fertile group. Materials and methods The human semen was collected from different infertile categories including oligoasthenospermia, asthenospermia, azoospermia, normospermia, oligospermia and fertile group. Immediately after collection, the semen analysis was done as per WHO standard protocols. After that, the semen was centrifuged to get the different fractions. Four main fractions were obtained, (1) spermatozoa, (2) debris or material that precipitates at 12 K rpm for 10 minutes, (3) prostasomes which was precipitated at 20K rpm for 120 minutes, (4) seminal plasma. The protein concentration was done by Lowry's method and cholesterol was estimated by diagnostic kit. Results Sodium dodecyl sulfate—polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS PAGE) was run for all the categories of semen samples for their seminal plasma and the fertility associated protein was identified. A significant difference was found in the concentration of proteins in all subfractions when compared between control and infertile categories. Almost 86% of the protein was recovered from soluble fraction. In case of azoospermia, the protein content was very low when compared with fertile group. Seminal plasma proteins were visualized by silver staining. The molecular weight of the protein bands were ranging from 6.5 to 205 kDa. The band with molecular weight around 55 kDa was found to be missing in case of oligoasthenospermia. This particular protein is said to be fertility associated protein. The content of cholesterol for different subfraction of the human semen samples from infertile and fertile samples was compared. A wide range of cholesterol was recovered from prostasomes, that too purified. Conclusion A thrive study have to be done in all the subfractions of the semen irrespective of the category of samples to know the exact function of the each subfractions in terms of protein and cholesterol distribution. How to cite this article Sundaram V, Srinivas MS, Rao KA, Pathy MR, Sridharan TB. A Comparative Study of Distribution of Protein and Cholesterol in Various Fractions of Human Semen from Infertile and Fertile Subjects. Int J Infertility Fetal Med 2012;3(3):78-82.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Esteves

Abstract text Male factor infertility is associated with impaired overall health, decreased life expectancy, lower quality of life and may affect reproductive outcomes even under assisted reproductive technology (ART) settings. Male factors, alone or combined with female factors, contribute to at least 50% of reported infertility cases. Despite this, the male partner is often overlooked in the evaluation and treatment of infertility. A routine semen analysis is frequently the only test carried out to assess a man’s fertility potential. The state-of-art on how the human semen should be assessed is provided by the World Health Organization (WHO), which periodically releases manuals that include specific protocols and reference standards. These manuals include detailed laboratory methods for semen examination, protocols for sperm preparation and cryopreservation, quality assurance and quality control, results’ interpretation, and reference ranges. Unlike the previous four versions, the latest 2010 WHO reference values relied on clinical chemistry principles to generate 95% intervals for sperm volume, count, motility, vitality, and morphology from recent fathers. The fifth centile was deemed suitable for representing semen characteristics at lower limits. The reference values ultimately obtained were markedly lower than those previously reported, raising concerns about its clinical utility and generalizability. Criticisms included the limited geographical area of patients analyzed, the methods used for semen evaluation, and the potential impact of the new reference range on patient referral, diagnosis, and treatment guidance. An updated new WHO manual (6th edition) is about to be released with much expectation. Although semen analysis remains one of the cornerstones of the infertility evaluation, a male infertility workup primarily based on routine semen analysis does not provide men with an optimal fertility pathway for many reasons. First, reference intervals do not reliably distinguish fertile from subfertile subjects. Second, an individual patient’s results have limited prognostic value for both natural and assisted conception unless at extreme lower limits. Third, there is a wide variation in how laboratories perform a semen analysis. Lastly, routine semen analysis does not detect sperm DNA defects that might adversely impact embryo development, implantation, and offspring’s health. Guidelines issued by professional societies recommend that a full andrological assessment be performed in all men with couple infertility. Well-trained reproductive urologists or clinical andrologists should perform the male evaluation, including a detailed history, physical examination, semen analysis, endocrine assessment, and other tests as needed. Therefore, the importance of WHO manuals remains critical. However, the goals of a comprehensive male infertility workup go beyond the laboratory assessment of human semen. It comprises i. Diagnosis, i.e., detection of any underlying relevant medical or lifestyle conditions potentially impairing the (reproductive) health of the male or his offspring; ii. Counselling, particularly regarding the impact of infertility, genetic factors, age, and lifestyle on pregnancy prospects, reproductive and overall health, and offspring’s well-being; and iii. Management Guidance, i.e., identifying optimal treatment options to improve the likelihood of achieving natural pregnancy or ART success. The prevention and management of male infertility are integral components of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services needed to attain a sustainable development goal.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Agarwal ◽  
M K Panne. Selvam

Abstract Study question Can LensHooke X1 PRO semen analyzer be used to evaluate sperm morphology in men with infertility? Summary answer Morphology results generated by X1 PRO are highly reliable when normal sperm forms are ≥4% and therefore they can be reported in such cases . What is known already Most laboratories rely on manual evaluation of sperm morphology smears, which is a time-consuming procedure and its results are subjected to a relatively high variability. However, in recent years the computer-assisted semen analyzers are being increasingly used to evaluate sperm morphology. The X1 PRO semen quality analyzer was designed for in vitro diagnostic use to analyze sperm concentration, total, progressive and non-progressive motility as well as sperm morphology based on WHO 5th edition criteria. Evaluation of sperm morphology using X1 PRO based on AIOM (Artificial Intelligence Optical Microscopic)-based technology requires no fixation steps or staining unlike the manual method. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study used 31 semen samples from 8 normozoospermic healthy volunteers and 5 infertile men with a minimum abstinence period between 2 - 3 days. While the 8 healthy semen donors produced a total of 26 ejaculates, which were split into 88 aliquots, the 5 infertile patients produced 5 ejaculates that were split into 13 aliquots. Participants/materials, setting, methods A total of 101 aliquots were prepared from the native semen samples either by dilution or concentration using seminal plasma of the respective donors. Automated semen analysis was performed by the X1 PRO semen analyzer and the results of sperm morphology were compared with manual morphology results using Diff-Quik staining. Statistical analysis was carried out to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of X1 PRO semen analyzer. Main results and the role of chance The X1 PRO sperm morphology results show a weak non-significant (P = 0.2441) correlation (r = 0.119) with the manual results. However, X1 PRO demonstrated a high PPV (97.7%) and a low NPV (9.1%) for correct assessment of sperm morphology (≥4%) when compared to manual results. Due to its high PPV, laboratories can report the morphology results generated by X1 PRO in all such cases when normal sperm forms are ≥4%. However, a manual evaluation is necessary in patients with abnormal morphology (<4%). Limitations, reasons for caution One of the limitation of this study is that X1 PRO morphology values did not correlate with manual results. The low NPV seen in our study is due to the inclusion of very few samples with abnormal sperm forms (<4%) in the analysis. Wider implications of the findings: The X1 PRO’s combination of speed, ease of use, accuracy and portability makes it a good choice of device for small medical offices to large IVF centers. High PPV of X1 PRO allows it to correctly identify normal sperm forms for diagnostic use. Trial registration number 18–771


1987 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 714-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven H. Brenner ◽  
Joseph B. Lesing ◽  
Cy Schoenfeld ◽  
Laura T. Goldsmith ◽  
Richard Amelar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Koushik Bhattacharya ◽  
Lipika Das Mukhopadhyay ◽  
Ratnadeep Goswami ◽  
Sulagna Dutta ◽  
Pallav Sengupta ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has turned into a global pandemic with multitudinous health impacts. Main body In light of the higher vulnerability of men to COVID-19 than women, there is rising concerns on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on male fertility and possibilities of seminal contamination and transmission. The pandemic has attributed to the brief suspension of many fertility clinics and pathology laboratories, though many remained functional. Few reports reflect that SARS-CoV-2 can contaminate the semen of COVID-19 patients as well as that of recovering patients. The viral invasion into the testis may be due to the disrupted anatomical barriers of the testis by the inflammatory responses, and the persistence of the virus in the semen may be facilitated by the testicular immune privilege. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus, it is also theoretically possible that this virus can remain viable in the semen samples even after cryopreservation with liquid nitrogen. Conclusion The present review emphasizes the possibilities of seminal dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 and thereby the chances of its sexual transmission. These perceptions and predictions are to facilitate immediate necessary actions to improvise the standard precautionary procedures for laboratory practices, including semen analysis or processing the semen sample for fertility treatments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. e189-e190
Author(s):  
Alessandra Parrella ◽  
Leonor Ortega-López ◽  
Yolanda Galiana Briones ◽  
Ismael Vilella Amorós ◽  
Jon Aizpurua

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document