A rapid quantitative method based on motility of bull sperm cells for in vitro toxicity testing of biomaterials

Spermiotoxicity of commercial condoms made from polyurethane, polyisoprene and latex, using domestic ruminants as an experimental animal model

“…given its very low adsorptive and adhesive properties, hydrophobic characteristics, and scant interaction with biological fluids (Colovan et al ., ). Further, in a study involving bull semen for testing the in vitro toxicity of biomaterials, spermatozoa in contact with polyurethane showed the same motility as controls maintained in bioglass vessels (Petzoldt et al ., ).…”

“…Spermatozoa in contact with this material had the same functional characteristics as did control spermatozoa. Polyurethane therefore shows excellent biocompatibility (Petzoldt et al ., ) and would therefore appear to be a good material for making condoms (or perhaps intravaginal devices) for collecting functional spermatozoa.…”

“…Rather, it may be the inorganic and organic ion content of both latex and polyisoprene condoms that reduce sperm motility. They might do so in four ways: (i) via the alteration of membrane structure, (ii) by causing changes to cell metabolism, (iii) by altering the microtubular system of axoneme (Petzoldt et al ., ) or (iv) by affecting the biochemical pathways regulating sperm movement (e.g. flagellar motility).…”

Automated analysis of rabbit sperm motility and the effect of chemicals on sperm motion parameters

“…Motility was completely inhibited in a time-and concentration-dependent manner, by a t least the highest concentration of the compounds, when AALH, Lin, and BCF were only marginally affected. Several authors have compared the effects of different compounds on sperm motility with their effects on the proliferation, respiration, adenine nucleotide content, and membrane integrity of cells and have concluded that sperm motility inhibition is useful as a measure of toxicity in the in vitro assessment of cytotoxicity (Petzoldt et al, 1985;Seibert et al, 1989;Kemp et al, 1990). These studies produced endpoints relevant for comparison between members of the group of compounds studied, but not for others, and did not provide motility-based parameters for general use as toxicological endpoints.…”

“…In vitro methods to assess the potential cytotoxic effects of chemicals would be faster and cheaper than toxicology tests utilizing animals and would be in concert with present societal attitude towards animal welfare, since animal use would be greatly reduced. Sperm motility is inhibited or altered by a variety of chemicals, and in vitro chemical cytotoxicity studies with bull spermatozoa have demonstrated a correlation between chemically induced motility inhibition and endpoints of assays that measure cell death (Petzoldt et al, 1985;Seibert et al, 1989;Kemp et al, 1990). These previous studies how-ever, have made no attempts to produce a motion derived toxicological endpoint.…”