Abstract
Purpose: To investigate three areas: the staining of spermatozoa; the Computer Assisted Semen Analysis (CASA); and the variability of technicians.
Methods: Staining experiment: sperm from 15 beef bulls were randomized to one of three staining protocols. CASA experiment: slides were evaluated using the Integrated Visual Optical System and compared to technician results. Variability of technicians: five laboratorians analyzed the same set of 20 slides six different times.
Results: Staining experiment: the size of the sperm increased in proportion to increased time and heat associated with each successive protocol. CASA experiment: coefficient of variation ranged from 18.3 to 101.7% (12 slides). Variability of technicians: the mean sperm morphology results ranged from 7.3 to 15% normal forms.
Conclusions: Until laboratories adhere to the universal standard set by the World Health Organization to evaluate sperm morphology, a laboratory must rely on its own quality control to insure repeatable results.
Keywords: Computer-assisted semen analysis, semen analysis, sperm morphology, staining, technician variability
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.4 KB).
References
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Assisted Reproduction Technology Success Rates. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Dec. 2002
- 2.World Health Organization: WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. Fourth edition. Cambridge University Press, 1999
- 3.Neuwinger J, Behre HM, Nieschlang E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: An experimental multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 1990;54:308–314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:112–117. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59660-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Lombard CJ, Van der Merwe JP, Van Zyl JA, Smith K. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:1118–1123. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)49891-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Kotze TJvW, Kruger TF, Van Zyl JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:586–592. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chan PJ, Corselli JU, Jacobson JD, Patton WC, King A. Correlation between intact sperm acrosome assessed using the Spermac stain and sperm fertilization capacity. Archives of Andrology. 1996;36(1):25–7. doi: 10.3109/01485019608987881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Davis RO, Gravance CG, Overstreet JW. A standardized test for visual analysis of human sperm morphology. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1058–1063. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57548-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hamilton Thorne Research. HTM-IVOS Version 10 Operations Manual. Hamilton Thorne Research, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 102-C, Beverly MA, 01915. August 15, 1995
- 10.Coetzee K, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Shaughnessy D, Oehninger S, Ozgur K, Pomeroy KO, Muller C. Assessment of interlaboratory and intralaboratory sperm morphology readings with the use of a Hamilton Thorne Research integrated visual optical system semen analyzer. Fertil and Steril. 1999;71:80–84. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00421-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Davis RO, Gravance CG. Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:412–417. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55686-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Garrett C, Baker HW. A new full automated system for the morphometric analysis of human sperm heads. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1306–1317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Clements S, Cooke ID, Barratt CL. Implementing comprehensive quality control in the andrology laboratory. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2096–2106. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cooper TG, Atkinson AD, Nieschlag E. Experience with external quality control in spermatology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:765–769. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.3.765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Franken DR, Smith M, Menkveld R, Kruger TF, Sekadde-Kigondu C, Mbizvo M, Akande EO. The development of a continuous quality control programme for strict sperm morphology among sub-Saharan African laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:667–671. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Freund M. Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology: a cooperative study. Internat J Fertil. 1966;11:97–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Eliasson R. Standards for investigation of human semen. Andrologie. 1971;3:49–64. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Windt ML, Kruger TF. In: The role of sperm cell morphology in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). In Atlas of human sperm morphology evaluation. Kruger TF, Franken DR, editors. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2004. pp. 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Jeyendran RS. In: Semen analysis and sperm assays. In Protocols for semen analysis in clinical diagnosis. Jeyendran RS, editor. Boca Raton: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 2003. pp. 17–40. [Google Scholar]