Skip to main content
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Mar 2.
Published in final edited form as: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014 Sep 30;23(10):787–791. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.5018

The Use of Biomarkers of Semen Exposure in Sexual and Reproductive Health Studies

Margaret Christine Snead 1, Carolyn M Black 2, Athena P Kourtis 1
PMCID: PMC4285335  NIHMSID: NIHMS652197  PMID: 25268551

Abstract

Biomarkers of semen exposure have been used in studies investigating the safety and efficacy of barrier methods of contraception. They have been used as objective indicators of semen exposure when studying sexual behaviors and in human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infection research interventions where participants are advised to avoid unprotected sex. Semen biomarkers have also been used to assess or validate self-reported sexual behaviors or condom use in reproductive health settings. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Y chromosome DNA (Yc-DNA) have each been evaluated in the past as semen biomarkers and are the most widely used in the field. While both are considered reliable for evaluating exposure to semen, each has unique characteristics. In this report, we summarize the literature and provide some considerations for reproductive health researchers who are interested in using PSA or Yc-DNA as semen biomarkers. We also synthesize our previous published work on the optimal conditions of collecting and storing specimens and assay performance in the presence of other vaginal products that may influence various assays. Semen biomarkers are innovative and promising tools to further study and better understand women’s reproductive and sexual health and behavior. More research is needed to better understand the strengths, limitations, and optimal performance conditions of specific assays in vivo.

Introduction

Biomarkers of semen exposure have been used in forensic settings for more than four decades. 1-3 More recently, they have also been applied in reproductive health study settings as objective markers of semen exposure.4-28 In the 1990s, public health researchers began to use semen biomarkers in studies investigating the safety and efficacy of barrier methods of contraception.4-9 Women participants were asked to take vaginal swabs before sex and then again after sex with a condom (or a new barrier device under investigation). The swabs would then be evaluated for the presence or absence of a semen biomarker, and if a semen biomarker was found in vaginal secretions, semen exposure was presumed to occur. Two of the most widely used semen biomarkers are Y chromosome DNA (Yc-DNA) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).29 Yc-DNA is a genomic marker found only in males on sperm cells,29-32 whereas PSA is a protein present in seminal plasma independently of spermatozoa.1-4,27 Although PSA is also present in other tissues and body fluids in both men and women (such as in blood, urine, and even breast milk), its presence in semen is higher by many orders of magnitude. Thus, PSA found in vaginal secretions above a certain threshold is indicative of semen exposure.27

In addition to studies investigating the safety and efficacy of barrier methods of contraception, semen biomarkers have been used in other reproductive health settings such as in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted infections (STI) research. In this case, their detection can help evaluate the efficacy of a physical barrier (such as condom), chemical barrier method, or a microbicide or assess study participants’ compliance with study procedures. For example, PSA or Yc-DNA may be used as indicators of semen exposure from unprotected sex or incorrect condom use in study participants who were advised to avoid unprotected sex.8-23 Yc-DNA has also been used in studies evaluating self-reported condom use of adolescents.10 PSA has been used to validate self-reports of recent sexual activity,10-20 including among female participants receiving treatment for STIs advised to avoid sex (or unprotected sex),14-15 and as an indicator of condom nonuse or failure.4-11,14,15,21

General Considerations for Determining the Need for Semen Biomarkers in Reproductive Health Studies

Objective indicators of sexual activity (in particular, semen exposure) could be important tools for reproductive, sexual, and women’s health studies, especially for investigating new methods of barrier contraception that have biological outcomes (such as pregnancy or STI) and have traditionally relied on self-report of condom use.24-27 Objective indicators of sexual activity have been identified as critically needed by the Microbicide Trial Network (www.mtnstophiv.org), and others.24-27 Semen biomarkers can also be used as a measure of compliance with study procedures when the study calls for condom use or avoidance of sex; if researchers know that women did not comply with study procedures, they could adjust for semen exposure in relevant analyses.24-27

Whether or not an objective indicator of semen exposure will add value to a particular study depends on the focus and scope of the study. In many reproductive health studies, the use of semen biomarkers is often in addition to self-reported sexual behavior. Laboratory-confirmed presence of semen biomarkers in vaginal secretions is considered objective22,24-27 as opposed to self-report, which is subject to several types of bias. When the research involves sensitive behaviors such as sex and condom use, reporting bias is known or suspected to occur. Previous studies have detailed a variety of types of reporting bias such as underreporting, overreporting, recall bias, or social desirability bias.27 In addition to reporting bias, sometimes participants are unaware of their exposure.15,22 Participants in clinical trials evaluating barrier methods of contraception, for example, may not be aware of some exposures such as a condom slippage or breakage that results in small exposures to semen.22,27 By contrast, some participants may report that they had an exposure or experienced issues with the condom, when the use of biomarkers yields negative results for semen exposure.22 Since perceptions are real in consequences,28 both types of information (self-report and the biomarker) could be of value to the research.22 For example, if a participant experienced and reported problems with a condom, then they may change their behavior accordingly, such as not using the condom and believing that it doesn’t work, based on their subjective experiences. Each measure (objective and subjective) offers different types of information that are important, especially when evaluating the safety and efficacy of new barrier methods of contraception.

Specific Considerations for the Semen Biomarker Assays

In addition to deciding whether a semen biomarker is useful for a study, a researcher must also decide which biomarker to use, as well as which assay to employ. There are many types of semen biomarkers that have been used, including, for example, semenogelin (Sg), sperm analysis, acid phosphatase, PSA, Yc-DNA, and testis-specific protein, Y-encoded, each with strengths and limitations for use as a biomarker. We focus here on the two that are most widely used in the field, and the ones that our group has had the most experience with, PSA and Yc-DNA. While both are indicators of semen exposure, these two markers have unique characteristics that researchers need to take into consideration when choosing the appropriate marker for their study. PSA reliably indicates very recent semen exposure (immediately post exposure and up to 24 hours, and then clearing by 48 hours),27 while Yc-DNA can reliably detect semen starting at about 12 hours post exposure and then clearing by 1 to 2 weeks post exposure.29-33 Real-time polymerase chain reaction is used for detection of Y chromosome DNA.30-34 While the assay offers a qualitative indication of the presence of Y chromosome DNA, it also yields quantitative results that have been shown to decrease with time since exposure.29-33 This assay is sensitive to five copies of Y chromosome for up to 14 days post exposure.

PSA is often considered the “gold standard” biomarker for recent semen exposure.19,22 There are several assays to detect PSA. The two that we have the most experience with are the Abbott Architect’s Total PSA quantitative assay and the Abacus ABAcard assay. The total PSA assay used on the Abbott Architect system is a chemiluminescent immunoassay that yields quantitative results, with a readable range of 0 to 100 ng/mL.35 This assay was developed for prostate cancer detection in serum and the Architect platform is commercially available from Abbott.27,35 The Abacus One Step ABAcard is a rapid qualitative or semiquantitative assay with a lower limit of detection of 4 ng/mL.36-38 This assay was developed for semen exposure detection for use in forensic settings.36 Our CDC group has developed a training module for laboratory professionals on using the ABAcards for reproductive health research; this can be found on the CDC TRAIN website (http://cdc.train.org; course ID: 1030498).

Besides the decay/residence time of the semen biomarker in the vagina, other considerations include interaction with other vaginal products that may be concurrently used, either as part of a study protocol or individually, by a woman. Such products may include lubricants, vaginal moisturizers, spermicides, or microbicides. Over the past few years, our laboratory has explored the in vitro effect of several different substances that may be used intravaginally and may affect some of the semen biomarker assays. Our experiments have demonstrated that some vaginal products (including microbicides) can affect the performance of some of the PSA38-41 or Yc-DNA40-41 assays. A summary of our results, which have been previously published,38-41 is outlined in Table 1. It should be noted that considerations are specific to the assay and the vaginal product. For example, the microbicide product tenofovir did not interfere with the performance of the quantitative PSA assay (total PSA for the Abbott Architect system), but did interfere with the performance of the qualitative assay (ABAcard).40-41

Table 1.

Effect of Vaginal Products on Select Semen Exposure Biomarker Assays In Vitro

Product (manufacturer) – main ingredient(s) Type Semen biomarker assays
PSA
Yc-DNA
ABAcarda Total PSAb Real-time PCR
K–Y Jelly Lubricant Not recommended Caution Caution
(Johnson & Johnson) – hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC)
Astroglide Lubricant Not recommended No known problems Not recommended
(BioFilm, Inc) – glycerin and propylene glycol
Silicorel Medical grade lubricant Not tested No known problems No known problems
(Formulated at Eastern Virginia Medical School [EVMS]) – polydimethylsiloxane (silicone based)
Surgilube Medical grade sterile lubricant Not recommended Not tested Not tested
(Fougera) – Chlorexidine gluconate and water soluble gums
CMC Ingredient in lubricants No known problems Caution No known problems
Formulated at EVMS – carboxymethylcellulose
Replens Vaginal moisturizer No known problems Not recommended Not recommended
(LDS Consumer Products) – polycarbofil
Carbopol Main ingredient of Replens Not tested Not recommended Not recommended
Formulated at EVMS – polycarbofil (acrylic polymer)
Gynol 2 Spermicide Not recommended Caution Caution
(Ortho) – 2% nonoxynol 9 in propylene glycol
N9 Spermicide No known problems No known problems No known problems
(Formulated at EVMS) – 2% nonoxynol 9 in saline
HEC Placeboc Not recommended No known problems Caution
(ReProtect) – 2.5% hydroxyethylcellulose
TFV Microbicide Not recommended No known problems Caution
(Gilead Sciences) – 1% tenofovir with 2.5% hydroxyethylcellulos
UC781 Microbicide Not recommended Not recommended Caution
(Cellegy Pharmaceuticals) – 0.1% in methycellulose and carbomer 974P
a

Key: Not recommended, product substantially interfered; Caution is warranted, product slightly interfered; No known problems, product did not interfere; Not tested, product was not tested.

b

For the Abbott Architect system.

c

Used in microbicide trials.

PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; Yc-DNA, Y chromosome DNA.

Other considerations such as cost and access to biomarker testing may also be important in choosing an assay.27 The quantitative PSA and the Yc-DNA assays require more laboratory skill and resources (such as specialized equipment) and are more costly compared with some of the qualitative PSA assays.27

Previous research has also been devoted to determining the optimal conditions of specimen collection and storage for PSA testing. Studies comparing collection of vaginal swabs by study participants—as opposed to health care providers—found that self-collected swabs and those collected by nurses were equivalent when tested for PSA.42 One concern may be that in large-scale clinical trials, study participants may forget to take swabs and turn in unused swabs. Some work has been done to develop an assay that will confirm that self-collected swabs were vaginally exposed (i.e., the swabs were inserted into the vagina).43 This would be especially informative for barrier contraceptive trials when semen biomarker testing is negative.25-27,43 Our CDC group also outlined optimal methods for collecting and storing vaginal specimens for PSA testing. Large capacity swabs (1 mL) were found to be superior and, once collected, stored at low temperatures (−80°C) until testing, resulted in superior PSA detection by the total PSA assay used on the Abbott Architect system.44 Specimen processing may also affect assay results.45 For example, saline (as opposed to the manufacturer’s provided or suggested extraction medium) used to extract specimens from vaginal swabs worked well for the ABAcard for detection of PSA, but not for the Rapid Stain Identification-Semen test (Independent Forensics, Hillside, IL) for detection of Sg.45

An emerging research question that must be addressed is what specimen types are appropriate for particular assays. This is especially important because many clinical trials collect cervicovaginal lavage specimens (CVLs) rather than vaginal swabs. Such specimens are diluted through the lavage process; in addition, in studies that collect multiple specimens, the order in which the particular specimen was collected may also affect semen biomarker detection. The solution used to obtain the CVL may not be appropriate for, or may interfere with, the assay. More work needs to be done to determine whether CVLs are a good specimen type for detection of biomarkers of semen exposure.

Conclusions

Semen biomarkers can be very useful tools for reproductive and sexual health researchers. Yc-DNA and PSA are both reliable indicators of vaginal semen exposure. Each marker is unique, with a variety of characteristics that the researcher should take into account. The best studied assay in this regard is the quantitative total PSA assay on the Abbott Architect system. Various assays for a particular marker have certain strengths and limitations that also need to be considered. To date, we know much more about PSA and Yc-DNA assays compared with other semen biomarker assays. For example, we know how certain PSA and Yc-DNA assays perform in the presence of other vaginal products in vitro and what the ideal conditions for specimen collection and storage are for the quantitative total PSA assay on the Abbott Architect system. Most of the work done has been in vitro, which is appropriate for obtaining some needed information on the assays. More research is needed to better understand the strengths, limitations, and optimal performance conditions of specific assays in vivo. Semen biomarkers are innovative and efficient tools that can be used to further study and better understand reproductive and sexual health.

Acknowledgments

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

  • 1.Graves H, Sensabaugh G, Blake E. Postcoital detection of a male-specific semen protein. Application to the investigation of rape. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:338–343. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198502073120603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Rudin O, et al. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) membrane test assays for the forensic identification of seminal fluid. J Forensic Sci. 1999;44:1057–1060. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Culhane JF, Nyirjesy P, McCollum K, Casabellata G, Di Santolo M, Cauci S. Evaluation of semen detection in vaginal secretions: comparison of four methods. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2008;60:274–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2008.00632.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Macaluso M, Lawson L, Akers R, et al. Prostate-specific antigen in vaginal fluid as a biologic marker of condom failure. Contraception. 1999;59:195–201. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00013-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Macaluso M, Lawson ML, Hortin G. Efficacy of the female condom as a barrier to semen during intercourse. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:289–297. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lawson ML, Maculuso M, Bloom A, Hortin G, Hammond KR, Blackwell R. Objective markers of condom failure. Sex Transm Dis. 1998;25:427–432. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199809000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Walsh TL, Frezieres RG, Nelson AL, Wraxall BG, Clark VA. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen as a quantifiable indicator of condom failure in clinical trials. Contraception. 1999;60:289–298. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00098-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen MP, Macaluso M, Blackwell R. Self-reported mechanical problems during condom use and semen exposure. Comparison of two randomized trials in the United States of America and Brazil. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:557–562. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000258487.38309.b9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lawson ML, Macaluso M, Duerr A, et al. Partner characteristics, intensity of the intercourse, and semen exposure during use of the female condom. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:282–288. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rose E, Diclemente RJ, Wingood GM, et al. The validity of teens’ and young adults’ self-reported condom use. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:61–64. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Evans JL, Couture MC, Stein ES, et al. Biomarker validation of recent unprotected sexual intercourse in a prospective study of young women engaged in sex work in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. oung Women’s Health Study Collaborative. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40:462–468. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318286db8a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, et al. Validity of self-reported ‘safe sex’ among female sex workers in Mombasa, Kenya–PSA analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18:33–38. doi: 10.1258/095646207779949899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen to ascertain reliability of self-reported coital exposure to semen. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:476–479. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000231960.92850.75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Anderson C, Gallo MF, Hylton-Kong T, et al. Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of counseling messages for avoiding unprotected sexual intercourse during sexually transmitted infection and reproductive tract infection treatment among female sexually transmitted infection clinic patients. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40:105–10. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31827938a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carter MW, Bailey A, Snead MC, et al. Exploring discordance between biologic and self-reported measures of semen exposure: a qualitative study among female patients attending an STI clinic in Jamaica. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:728–736. doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0286-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Thomsen SC, Gallo MF, Ombidi W, et al. Randomised controlled trial on whether advance knowledge of prostate-specific antigen testing improves participant reporting of unprotected sex. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83:419–420. doi: 10.1136/sti.2006.022772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Minnis AM, Steiner MJ, Gallo MF, et al. Biomarker validation of reports of recent sexual activity: results of a randomized controlled study in Zimbabwe. Amer J Epidemiol. 2009;170:918–924. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gallo MF, Steiner MJ, Hobbs MM, et al. Predictors of unprotected sex among female sex workers in Madagascar: semen biomarkers and self-reported data. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:1279–1286. doi: 10.1007/s10461-010-9742-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aho J, Koushik A, Diakité SL, et al. Biological validation of self-reported condom use among sex workers in Guinea. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:1287–1293. doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9602-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mose F, Newman LP, Njunguna R, et al. Biomarker evaluation of self-reported condom use among women in HIV-discordant couples. Int J STD AIDS. 2013;24:537–540. doi: 10.1177/0956462412473892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Walsh TL, Frezieres RG, Peacock K, et al. Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to measure semen exposure resulting from male condom failures: Implications for contraceptive efficacy and the prevention of sexually transmitted disease. Contraception. 2003;67:139–150. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00478-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Walsh T, Warner L, Macaluso M, Frezieres R, Snead MC, Wraxall B. Prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker of condom failure: comparison of three laboratory assays and self-reported condom use problems in a randomized trial of female condom performance. Contraception. 2012 Jul;86(1):55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.10.018. Epub March 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Walsh TL, Frezieres RG, Peacock K, et al. Effectiveness of the male latex condom: Combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials. Contraception. 2004;70:407–413. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mauck CK, va der Straten A. Using objective markers to assess participant behavior in HIV prevention trials of vaginal microbicides. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;49:64–69. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318183a917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mauck CK, Weaver MA, Schwartz JL, Walsh T, Joanis C. Critical next steps for female condom research—Report from a workshop. Contraception. 2009;79:339–344. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mauck CK, Doncel GF. Biomarkers of semen in the vagina: Applications in clinical trials of contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted pathogens including HIV. Contraception. 2007;75:407–419. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gallo MF, Steiner MJ, Hobbs MM, Warner L, Jamieson DJ, Macaluso M. Biological markers of semen exposure: Tools for improving the assessment of sexual behavior in HIV/STI prevention research. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40:447–452. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31828b2f77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Merton RK. The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect. Social Forces. 1995;74:379–424. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jamshidi R, Penman-Aguilar A, Wiener J, et al. Detection of two biological markers of intercourse: Prostate-specific antigen and Y-chromosomal DNA. Contraception. 2013:88749–757. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Melendez JH, Giles JA, Yuenger JD, et al. Detection and quantification of Y-chromosomal sequences by real-time PCR using the Light Cycler system. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:617–619. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000258336.65285.31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zenilman JM, Yuenger J, Galai N, Turner CF, Rogers SM. Polymerase chain reaction detection of Y chromosome sequences in vaginal fluid: Preliminary studies of a potential biomarker for sexual behavior. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32:90–94. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000149668.08740.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jadack RA, Yuenger J, Ghanem KG, Zenilman J. Polymerase chain reaction detection of Y-chromosome sequences in vaginal fluid of women accessing a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:22–25. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000194600.83825.81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ghanem KG, Melendez JH, McNeil-Solis C, et al. Condom use and vaginal Y-chromosome detection: The specificity of a potential biomarker. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:620–623. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000258318.99606.d9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chomont N, Grésenguet G, Lévy M, et al. Detection of Yc-DNA as evidence of semen in cervicovaginal secretions of sexually active women. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2001;8:955–958. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.8.5.955-958.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Abbott Diagnostics. Abbott Park, IL: [July 27, 2014]. ARCHITECT i2000SR. Available at www.abbottdiagnostics.com/Products/Instruments_by_Platform/default.cfm?system=ARCHITECT&suffix=i2000sr&reg=us. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abacus Diagnostics. West Hills, CA: ABAcard; [July 27, 2014]. Available at: www.abacusdiagnostics.com/semen.htm. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hobbs MM, Steiner MJ, Rich KD, et al. Good performance of rapid prostate-specific antigen test for detection of semen exposure in women: Implications for qualitative research. Sexually Transm Dis. 2009;36:501–506. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181a2b4bf. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Snead MC, Kourtis AP, Black CM, et al. Effect of topical vaginal products on the detection of prostate specific antigen, a biomarker of semen exposure, using ABAcards. Contraception. 2013;88:382–386. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Snead MC, Melendez JH, Kourtis AP, et al. Effect of lubricants and a vaginal spermicide gel on the detection of prostate specific antigen, a biomarker of semen exposure, using a quantitative (Abbott ARCHITECT) assay. Contraception. 2014;89:134–138. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.09.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Snead MC, Kourtis AP, Melendez JH, et al. Does tenofovir gel or do other microbicide products affect detection of biomarkers of semen exposure in vitro? Contraception. 2014;90:136–141. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Melendez JH, Doncel GF, Chaney D, et al. London: International Society for STD Research; 2009. Inhibitory effect of lubricants and a vaginal contraceptive gel on detection of biomarkers of semen exposure. [abstract]. Available at www.isstdr.org/BASSH%20Abstracts%20as%20at%2016%20November.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bahamondes L, Diaz J, Marchi NM, Castro S, Villarroel M, Macaluso M. Prostate-specific antigen in vaginal fluid after exposure to known amounts of semen and after condom use: Comparison of self-collected and nurse collected samples. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2444–2451. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Anderson D, Potlitch J, Marquez C, Snead MC, Mauck CK. A quantitative glycogen assay to verify use of self-administered vaginal swabs. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2012;39:949–953. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31826e880e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gallo MF, Snead MC, Black CM, et al. Optimal methods for collecting and storing vaginal specimens for prostate-specific antigen testing in research studies. Contraception. 2013;87:830–835. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hobbs MM, Steiner MJ, Rich KD, Gallo MF, Warner L, Macaluso M. Vaginal swab specimen processing methods influence performance of rapid semen detection tests: A cautionary tale. Contraception. 2010;82:291–295. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES