Background Asthenozoospermia is one of the most common findings present in infertile males, but its aetiology remains unknown in most cases. Present proteomic tools now offer the opportunity to identify proteins which are differentially expressed in asthenozoospermic semen samples and potentially involved in infertility. Methods We compared the expression of 101 sperm protein spots in 20 asthenozoospermic samples to that of 10 semen donor controls using two-dimensional proteomic analysis. Results Seventeen protein spots have been identified at different amounts in the asthenozoospermic samples compared with controls. These are cytoskeletal actin-B, annexin-A5, cytochrome C oxidase-6B, histone H2A, prolactin-inducible protein and precursor, calcium binding protein-S100A9 (2 spots), clusterin precursor, dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase precursor, fumarate hydratase precursor, heat shock protein-HSPA2, inositol-1 monophosphatase, 3-mercapto-pyruvate sulfurtransferase/dienoyl-CoA isomerase precursor, proteasome subunit-PSMB3, semenogelin 1 precursor and testis expressed sequence 12. The detected amount of these proteins enabled the grouping of asthenozoospermic sperm samples in an unsupervised clustering analysis. Conclusions We have identified several proteins present at different amount in asthenozoospermic sperm samples. These proteins could be candidates towards the development of diagnostic markers, and open up the opportunity to gain further insight into the pathogenic mechanisms involved in asthenozoospermia.

/pdf/identification-of-proteomic-differences-in-asthenozoospermic-3ftoypo9zg.pdf

Identification of proteomic differences in asthenozoospermic sperm samples

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to assess the components of biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. METHODS: Twenty donor candidates were included in a 10-week follow-up study. Within- and between-subject biological variation, indices of individuality and heterogeneity, coefficient of reliability, critical differences, analytical goals and the lowest value observed with a <5% probability of having a true value less than the World Health Organization (1999) reference value were estimated for the following seminal parameters: concentration, total motility (WHO grades a + b + c), progressive motility (grades a + b), rapid progressive motility (grade a), sperm morphology and vitality. All analysis was performed by a single technician according to WHO 1999 guidelines for routine semen analysis. Analytical variation was assessed on different types of quality control material (frozen straws, sperm suspension, videotape, and slides) and at different (low, medium, high) quality levels. RESULTS: The analytical variation observed depended on the quality control material used and the level of semen quality. Concentration was the semen parameter with highest within- and between-subject variation, and vitality the lowest. Indices of individuality were all <0.7, and coefficients of reliability were high (0.68-0.84). The critical difference for sequential values significant at P < 0.05 for vitality, progressive motility and morphology (34.4, 49.2 and 58.0% respectively) were lower than for concentration (77.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The study results showed that conventional reference values for seminal parameters have little diagnostic value because of their marked individuality, though seminal parameters can be useful for assessing differences in an individual's serial results, in particular of progressive motility, morphology and vitality.

Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects

Morphological traits of submerged macrophytes reveal specific positive feedbacks to water clarity in freshwater ecosystems.

A home-use device that allows rapid and quantitative sperm quality analysis is desirable but not yet fully realized. To aid this effort, this article presents a microfluidic device capable of quantifying sperm quality in terms of two critical fertility-related parameters—motile sperm concentration and motility. The microdevice produces flow field for sperms to swim against, and sperms that overcame the flow within a specified time are propelled along in a separate channel and counted via resistive pulse technique. Data are compared to two control methods clinically utilized for sperm quality exam—hemocytometer and the sperm quality analyzer. Results reveal the numbers of pulses generated by passage of sperms correlates strongly with the two control methods: pulse number from 0 to 335 corresponds to progressively motile sperm concentrations from 0 to 19 × 106/ml (hemocytometer) and Sperm Motility Index from 0 to 204 (sperm quality analyzer). The microdevice should be applicable to facilitate self-assessment of sperm quality at home.

Analysis of sperm concentration and motility in a microfluidic device

Purpose
Despite controversy regarding its clinical value, male fertility investigation mainly relies on semen analysis. Even though reference guidelines are available, manual sperm analysis still suffers from analytical variability, thus questioning the interest of automated sperm analysis systems. The aim of this study is to compared automated computerized semen analysis systems (SQA-V GOLD and CASA CEROS) to the conventional manual method in terms of accuracy and precision.

/pdf/double-blind-prospective-study-comparing-two-automated-sperm-3u7ftzzgrk.pdf

Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the sperm quality analyser (SQA)-IIB, a new automated sperm analyser, and to compare its results with those obtained with a method based on the World Health Organization recommendations. Eighty-nine unprocessed semen samples and 53 selected sperm suspensions were analysed. Concentration, motility and morphology were evaluated using the routine laboratory method. The SQA-IIB measured the sperm motility index (SMI) and estimated the previously mentioned parameters. In the imprecision assay a maximal coefficient of variation (CV) of 18.8% was found. A semen sample with immunological factor showed a CV of 75.75%, which invalidates its use for these types of samples. A good correlation was obtained between SMI and concentration of progressively motile spermatozoa (CPMS) (r = 0.87), and a fair correlation with the other parameters. There was no statistically significant correlation between both methods for normal sperm morphology. The sensitivity and specificity of the SMI test in relation to CPMS were 96 and 84% respectively, for an SMI threshold value of 160. The results obtained make the SQA-IIB a good screening test to rule out oligozoospermia and asthenozoospermia when studying the male factor in the sterility outpatient clinics. However, the results suggested that it is not a valid method to evaluate morphology.

/pdf/sperm-motility-index-a-quick-screening-parameter-from-sperm-wf36h5yieo.pdf

A. López-Urrutia

Papers

Sperm motility index : a quick screening parameter from sperm quality analyser-IIB to rule out oligo- and asthenozoospermia in male fertility study