Assessment of hyperactivation, acrosome reaction and motility characteristics of spermatozoa from semen of men of proven fertility and unexplained infertility

Abstract

Semen from men of proven fertility was compared with that of men with unexplained infertility to determine differences in spermatozoal functions such as hyperactivation and acrosome reaction and spermatozoal motility characteristics. The hyperactivated spermatozoa in both groups could be visualised on the monitor of the Computer Assisted Semen Analyser and they exhibited 'circling', 'thrashing', 'starspin' and 'helical' motility patterns and the mean hyperactivation rates were not significantly different. However, 20% of the men with unexplained infertility did not exhibit hyperactivation compared to only 4% in the fertile group. Furthermore, the semen from infertile men when evaluated for hyperactivation could be categorised into two groups with those having lower hyperactivation ( < 10% or <6% after 4 and 6 h of incubation respectively), forming the first group, and those having a higher hyperactivation rate constituting the second group. In the fertile men such distinct groups were not visible and the percentage hyperactivation ranged from 1 to 16%. No significant differences were observed in the rate of acrosome reaction of fertile and unexplained infertile men.The non-hyperactivated spermatozoa from unexplained infertile men showed a significant increase in path velocity (VAP), curvilinear velocity (VCL) and amplitude of lateral head displacement (ALH) and a decrease in linearity (LIN) and straightness (STR) compared to spermatozoa from fertile men. Furthermore, the hyperactivated spermatozoa from infertile men also showed an increase in progressive velocity (VSL) (only after 2 h of incubation) and LIN and decrease in ALH Correspondence: Dr S. Shivaji, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad 500 007, India. and beat cross frequency (BCF) compared to spermatozoa from fertile men. The results are discussed in the light of the importance of the above spermatozoal functions and spermatozoal parameters in fertilization.

Assessment of sperm hyperactivated motility and acrosome reaction can discriminate the use of spermatozoa for conventionalin vitrofertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Preliminary results

“…Inhibition of HAM prevents fertilisation (Stauss et al ., ). Evaluation of HAM by CASA among patients with unexplained infertility has already been described (Mackenna et al ., ; Peedicayil et al ., ; Muratori et al ., ). However, none of these studies were done in IVF patients, so the correlation of HAM to fertilisation rates on the day of OPU could not be compared.…”

Quantification of CatSper1 expression in human spermatozoa and relation to functional parameters

“…Importantly, we show here that the percentage of spermatozoa expressing CatSper1 (but none of the parameters evaluated by routine semen analysis) predicts with high accuracy, sensitivity and good specificity, the ability of the sample to reach a level of HA of 10% which distinguishes between donors (young men with no known fertility problems) and subfertile subjects (Alasmari et al, 2013a), reinforcing involvement of the CatSper channel in establishment of HA in human spermatozoa. HA is related to natural fertility (Peedicayil et al, 1997;Mazzilli et al, 2001) and predicts results of IVF (Wang et al, 1993;Sukcharoen et al, 1995;Hirano et al, 2001). Conversely, routine semen analysis is poorly predictive of both natural and in vitro fertilization (Liu and Baker, 2002;Leushuis et al, 2014).…”

Male Infertility

“…Several studies have shown that the quantitative assessment of sperm kinetics is of clinical value in identifying men with unexplained infertility and predicting in vivo and in vitro fertility (Consensus Workshop on Advanced Diagnostic Andrology Techniques 1996; Peedicayil et al 1997;Shibahara et al 2004). Despite the documented clinical value of assessment of sperm kinetics, there is an agreement that individual motion characteristics are of little value (Consensus Workshop on Advanced Diagnostic Andrology Techniques 1996).…”