Developing techniques for determining sperm morphology in today’s andrology laboratory

Abstract

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.

Rapid thawing human sperm does not affect basic parameters in normozoospermic men: a double-blind prospective study

“…Some published papers have used Kruger morphological evaluation with other dyes (8,16). The best method should be the most beneficial to the laboratory as each method has limitations (17). Therefore, hematoxylin was chosen as a routine staining procedure for Kruger strict criteria sperm evaluation.…”

Morphometric dimensions of the stallion sperm head depending on the staining method used

“…Hence each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. The use of each of the stains has specific consequences in terms of the possibility of assessing individual structures in gametes (19). Although some studies indicate that alternative staining techniques are effective, others report that there are significant discrepancies in differentiation, intensity, and contrast, and more importantly, in the size and shape of the spermatozoa, and each of these characteristics can affect the final result of the morphological assessment in prognostication of male fertility (50).…”

“…Sperm morphology is an important parameter in predicting fertility in humans and animals (19,30). While there are other significant semen parameters, such as sperm motility and sperm concentration, in the era of in vitro fertilisation, insemination, and natural mating service, morphological structure of spermatozoa is regarded as the most important.…”

The usefulness of Real Time Morphology software in semen assessment of teratozoospermic boars

“…The most popular dyes are: Diff-Quik [Coetzee et al 2001], Papanicolaou [Coetzee et al 2001], Giemsa [Niżański 2006], Spermac® [Chong et al 1984], Shorr [Menkveld et al 1997], Sperm-Blue® [van der Horst et al 2009], and nigrosin-eosin dye [Dott and Foster 1972]. Unfortunately, choice may influence the results obtained, e.g., Diff-Quik increases the size of the sperm head [Graves et al 2005]. In smears stained with Giemsa, acrosomal damage is not always visible, and Papanicolaou and Shorr methods of staining are timeconsuming [Graves et al 2005].…”

“…Unfortunately, choice may influence the results obtained, e.g., Diff-Quik increases the size of the sperm head [Graves et al 2005]. In smears stained with Giemsa, acrosomal damage is not always visible, and Papanicolaou and Shorr methods of staining are timeconsuming [Graves et al 2005]. Staining using eosin dye is also not optimal.…”