Animal Reproduction (AR)
https://animal-reproduction.org/article/doi/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2021-0077
Animal Reproduction (AR)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The effect of adjusting settings within a Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA) system on bovine sperm motility and morphology results

Ciara O’Meara; Emilie Henrotte; Kasia Kupisiewicz; Catherine Latour; Marleen Broekhuijse; Agnes Camus; Lucie Gavin-Plagne; Eli Sellem

Downloads: 4
Views: 273

Abstract

Semen motility is the most widely recognized semen quality parameter used by Artificial Insemination (AI) centers. With the increasing worldwide export of semen between AI centers there is an increasing need for standardized motility assessment methods. Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA) technology is thought to provide an objective motility evaluation; however, results can still vary between laboratories. The aim of present study was to verify the impact of different setting values of the CASA IVOS II on motility, concentration, and morphology of bovine semen samples frozen in an extender with or without egg yolk and then decide on optimal settings for a further validation step across AI centers. Semen straws from 30 different bulls were analyzed using IVOS II with twelve modified settings. No significant changes were observed in semen concentration, percentage of motile sperm or kinetic results for either extender type. However, increasing settings for both STR and VAP progressive (%) from Low, Medium, and High cut-off values significantly (p<0.05) reduced the percentage of detected progressive spermatozoa, in egg yolk extender from 49.5±15.2, 37.2±11.9 to 11.9±5.3%, and in clear extender from 51.9±9.1, 35.8±7.3 to 10.0±2.4%, respectively. In clear extender only, the modification of droplet proximal head length significantly affected the detection of normal sperm percentages (88.0± 4.7 to 95.0±0.6 and 96.0±0.6%) and of the percentage of detected proximal droplets (12.2±4.7, 2.5±2.7 to 0.6±0.2%) for Low, Medium and High values respectively (p<0.05). The identification of sensitivity within the CASA system to changes in set parameters then led to the determination of an optimal IVOS II setting. The existing variability among centers for these phenotypes was reduced when the standardized settings were applied across different CASA units. The results clearly show the importance of applied settings for the final CASA results and emphasize the need for standardized settings to obtain comparable data.

Keywords

bovine semen, sperm functionality, settings standardization

References

Agarwal A, Said TM. Role of sperm chromatine abnormalities and dna damage in male infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(4):331-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmg027. PMid:12926527.

Al-Makhzoomi A, Lundeheim N, Haard M, Rodriguez-Martinez H. Sperm morphology and fertility of progeny-tested AI dairy bulls in Sweden. Theriogenology. 2008;70(4):682-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.04.049. PMid:18539320.

Amann RP, Seidel GE Jr, Mortimer RG. Fertilizing potential in vitro of semen from young beef bulls containing a high or low percentage of sperm with a proximal droplet. Theriogenology. 2000;54(9):1499-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00470-2. PMid:11191872.

Amann RP, Waberski D. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology. 2014;81(1):5-17.e3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.004. PMid:24274405.

Bailey E, Fenning N, Chamberlain S, Devlin L, Hopkisson J, Tomlinson M. Validation of sperm counting methods using limits of agreement. J Androl. 2007;28(3):364-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.106.002188. PMid:17215545.

Birks AG, Izzard H, Morroll DR, Prior JR, Troup SA, Lieberman BA, Matson PL. The routine assessment of sperm motility at room temperature and 37 degrees C. Int J Androl. 1994;17(6):289-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.1994.tb01258.x. PMid:7744507.

Brazil C, Swan SH, Tollner CR, Treece C, Drobnis EZ, Wang C, Redmon JB, Overstreet JW. Quality control of laboratory methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004;25(4):645-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02836.x. PMid:15223854.

Brito LFC. Variations in laboratory semen evaluation procedures and testing. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination & Reproduction; 2010; Milwaukee. Milwaukee: NAAB; 2010. pp. 61-7.

Broekhuijse ML, Sostaric E, Feitsma H, Gadella BM. Additional value of computer assisted semen analysis (CASA) compared to conventional motility assessments in pig artificial insemination. Theriogenology. 2011;76(8):1473-86.e1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.05.040. PMid:21872316.

Broekhuijse MLWJ, Šoštarić E, Feitsma H, Gadella BM. Application of computer-assisted semen analysis to explain variations in pig fertility. J Anim Sci. 2012;90(3):779-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4311. PMid:22064743.

Bucak MN, Ataman MB, Baspinar N, Uysal O, Taspinar M, Bilgili A, Ozturk C, Gungor S, Inanc ME, Akal E. Lycopene and resveratrol improve post-thaw bull sperm parameters: sperm motility, mitochondrial activity and DNA integrity. Andrologia. 2015;47(5):545-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.12301. PMid:24909239.

Carreira JT, Mingoti GZ, Rodrigues LH, Silva C, Perri SH, Koivisto MB. Impact of proximal cytoplasmic droplets on quality traits and in-vitro embryo production efficiency of cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Acta Vet Scand. 2012;54(1):1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-54-1. PMid:22240071.

Castro LS, Siqueira AFP, Hamilton TRS, Mendes CM, Visintin JA, Assumpção MEOA. Effect of bovine sperm chromatin integrity evaluated using three different methods on in vitro fertility. Theriogenology. 2018;107:142-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.11.006. PMid:29154161.

Chaveiro A, Machado L, Frijters A, Engel B, Woelders H. Improvement of parameters of freezing medium and freezing protocol for bull sperm using two osmotic supports. Theriogenology. 2006;65(9):1875-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.10.017. PMid:16310842.

Christensen P, Labouriau R, Birck A, Boe-Hansen GB, Pedersen J, Borchersen S. Relationship among seminal quality measures and field fertility of young dairy bulls using low-dose inseminations. J Dairy Sci. 2011;94(4):1744-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3087. PMid:21426963.

Farrell PB, Foote RH, McArdle MM, Trouern-Trend VL, Tardif AL. Media and dilution procedures tested to minimize handling effects on human, rabbit, and bull sperm for computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA). J Androl. 1996;17(3):293-300. PMid:8792220.

Hansen C, Vermeiden T, Vermeiden JPW, Simmet C, Day BC, Feitsma H. Comparison of FACSCount AF system, Improved Neubauer hemocytometer, Corning 254 photometer, SpermVision, UltiMate and NucleoCounter SP-100 for determination of sperm concentration of boar semen. Theriogenology. 2006;66(9):2188-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.020. PMid:16920186.

Hoflack G, Opsomer G, Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, de Kruif A, Duchateau L. Comparison of computer-assisted sperm motility analysis parameters in semen from Belgian blue and Holstein-Friesian bulls. Reprod Domest Anim. 2007;42(2):153-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00745.x. PMid:17348972.

İnanç ME, Çi̇l B, Teki̇n K, Alemdar H, Daşkin A. The combination of CASA kinetic parameters and fluorescein staining as a fertility tool in cryopreserved bull semen. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2018;42(5):452-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3906/vet-1801-83.

Januskauskas A, Johannisson A, Rodriguez-Martinez H. Subtle membrane changes in cryopreserved bull semen in relation with sperm viability, chromatin structure, and field fertility. Theriogenology. 2003;60(4):743-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00050-5. PMid:12832022.

Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, Karthikeya G, Rengarajan K, Kadirvel G. Objective sperm motion analysis to assess dairy bull fertility using computer-aided system--a review. Reprod Domest Anim. 2011;46(1):165-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2010.01603.x. PMid:20403134.

Keel BA, Stembridge TW, Pineda G, Serafy NT Sr. Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(3):603-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03296-X. PMid:12215340.

Keel BA. How reliable are results from the semen analysis? Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):41-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.007. PMid:15236987.

Lasiene K, Gedrimas V, Vitkus A, Glinskyte S, Lasys V, Valanciute A, Sienkiewicz W. Evaluation of morphological criteria of sperm quality before in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Pol J Vet Sci. 2013;16(4):773-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2013-0112. PMid:24597318.

Lenz RW, Kjelland ME, Vonderhaar K, Swannack TM, Moreno JF. A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer. J Anim Sci. 2011;89(2):383-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3056. PMid:20952528.

Lu JC, Zhang HY, Hu YA, Huang YF, Lu NQ. A survey on the status of semen analysis in 118 laboratories in China. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(1):104-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/aja.2008.41. PMid:19234484.

Mallidis C, Cooper TG, Hellenkemper B, Lablans M, Uckert F, Nieschlag E. Ten years experience with an external quality control program for semen analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):611-6.e4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.006. PMid:22633256.

Murphy EM, O’Meara C, Eivers B, Lonergan P, Fair S. Comparison of plant- and egg yolk-based semen diluents on in vitro sperm kinematics and in vivo fertility of frozen-thawed bull semen. Anim Reprod Sci. 2018;191:70-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.02.010. PMid:29496341.

Nagy S, Jansen J, Topper EK, Gadella BM. A triple-stain flow cytometric method to assess plasma- and acrosome-membrane integrity of cryopreserved bovine sperm immediately after thawing in presence of egg-yolk particles. Biol Reprod. 2003;68(5):1828-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.102.011445. PMid:12606354.

Partyka A, Lukaszewicz E, Nizanski W, Twardon J. Detection of lipid peroxidation in frozen-thawed avian spermatozoa using C(11)-BODIPY(581/591). Theriogenology. 2011;75(9):1623-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.01.002. PMid:21396693.

Rossitto M, Marchive C, Pruvost A, Sellem E, Ghettas A, Badiou S, Sutra T, Poulat F, Philibert P, Boizet-Bonhoure B. Intergenerational effects on mouse sperm quality after in utero exposure to acetaminophen and ibuprofen. FASEB J. 2019;33(1):339-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.201800488RRR. PMid:29979629.

Saacke RG. Sperm morphology: its relevance to compensable and uncompensable traits in semen. Theriogenology. 2008;70(3):473-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.04.012. PMid:18495234.

Sellem E, Broekhuijse ML, Chevrier L, Camugli S, Schmitt E, Schibler L, Koenen EP. Use of combinations of in vitro quality assessments to predict fertility of bovine semen. Theriogenology. 2015;84(9):1447-54.e5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.07.035. PMid:26296523.

Simonik O, Sichtar J, Krejcarkova A, Rajmon R, Stadnik L, Beran J, Dolezalova M, Biniova Z. Computer assisted sperm analysis–the relationship to bull field fertility, possible errors and their impact on outputs: a review. Indian J Anim Sci. 2015;85:3-11.

Toft G, Rignell-Hydbom A, Tyrkiel E, Shvets M, Giwercman A. Quality control workshops in standardization of sperm concentration and motility assessment in multicentre studies. Int J Androl. 2005;28(3):144-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00518.x. PMid:15910539.

Verstegen J, Iguer-Ouada M, Onclin K. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology. 2002;57(1):149-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00664-1. PMid:11775967.

Walczak-Jedrzejowska R, Marchlewska K, Oszukowska E, Filipiak E, Bergier L, Slowikowska-Hilczer J. Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories? Asian J Androl. 2013;15(5):616-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/aja.2013.48. PMid:23817502.

WHO. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
 


Submitted date:
07/26/2021

Accepted date:
12/27/2021

61fc2106a95395419d64f0c5 animreprod Articles
Links & Downloads

Anim Reprod

Share this page
Page Sections