Morphological characterization of ejaculated cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) sperm

Abstract

The aim of this study was to give reference values for the frequency of morphological sperm abnormalities present in the semen from non-experimental cynomolgus monkeys as well as for the dimensions of sperm heads. Spermatozoa from the liquid portion of electroejaculates from 14 cynomolgus monkeys were air-dried as smears, fixed, and stained with Harris's Haematoxylin and subjected to visual analysis of morphology and computer-aided analysis of ten morphometric variables. The majority (83%) of sperm were morphologically normal. Tail defects were the most common (11%), and showed the highest variation between individuals, the values ranging between 4 and 23%. Head abnormalities consisted of large, tapering, and amorphous forms but were not frequent (0.4%), the values ranging between 0 and 1.3%. Midpiece imperfections were found in all the individuals; the mean percentage was 5%, and the range varied between 3 and 9%. Tail plus midpiece was the only multiple abnormality observed, with a mean value of 1.5% and a range between 0 and 8%. The majority of these double defects consisted of a coiled tail together with a coiled midpiece. Mean values for the morphometric parameters characterizing sperm heads were as follows: area 17.2 microm2, perimeter 15.2 microm, length 5.8 microm, width 4.0 microm, L/W ratio 1.5, gray-level 98, ellipticity 0.2, first shape factor 0.9, second shape factor 1.4, and third shape factor 1.1. Overall coefficients of variation for the majority of parameters were below 7%, showing the great homogeneity in the dimensions of cynomolgus sperm heads. Most useful parameters for sperm characterization, according to their low variability, were perimeter, length, width, L/W ratio, and shape factors. Differences in these parameters were, however, observed between monkeys.

Characterization of ram (Ovis aries) sperm head morphometry using the Sperm-Class Analyzer

“…Our finding that there are differences between spermatozoa from healthy rams is potentially as important as it has been the case for stallions [36], canine [17], alpaca [34], and monkey [35]. This finding suggests that the former concept of normality requires some reconsideration, with the introduction of new Please cite this article in press as: Maroto-Morales A, et al Characterization of ram sperm head morphometry using the Sperm-Class Analyzer.…”

“…As technologies for studying the characteristics and functions of individual spermatozoa have improved, it has become clear that extensive heterogeneity of morphology exists, not only between species but also between individuals within the same species or breed [33]. Thus, betweenmale variation in sperm morphology has been recorded for several species [17,[34][35][36]. To our knowledge, little attention has been paid to the study of sperm morphometry in sheep using ASMA.…”

“…animals [35]. The most suitable parameters for use in the identification of individual males are those characterized by relatively low within-animal and relatively high between-animal CVs, respectively.…”

Morphometrically-distinct sperm subpopulations defined by a multistep statistical procedure in Ram ejaculates: intra- and interindividual variation

“…Our results have shown for the percentage of the four sperm subpopulations higher CV b than CV w . The most suitable parameters form use in the characterization of individual males should be those characterized by relatively low CV w and relatively high CV b [38,39]. So, low intramale variability observed in this study is a good indicator that the sperm subpopulation structure based on the spermatozoa head morphometry is quite constant within a male.…”

Comparison of three different staining methods for the morphometric characterization of Alpaca (Vicugna pacos) sperm, using ISAS® CASA-Morph system

“…In general, the cells analysed here were shorter and thinner than those observed after artificial vagina sampling, using the Hemacolor staining (Buendía et al, 2002). This can be due to the fact that two different CASA-Morph systems were used or most probably because, as it was shown in different species, there are differences among spermatozoa from the epididymis directly and post-ejaculation (Yeung et al, 1997;Pérez-Sánchez et al, 1998;Gago et al, 1999Gago et al, , 2000Soler et al, 2000). Therefore, it is necessary to consider collecting methods and/or the origin of the sample before performing any morphometric data comparison.…”