https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/agromesoAgronomía Mesoamericana ISSN electrónico: 2215-3608

Computer-assisted semen analysis systems in animal reproduction

Anthony Valverde Abarca, Mónica Madrigal Valverde



DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/ma.v29i2.30613

Abstract


Computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) is used in animal reproduction with the objective of evaluating spermquality, quickly and reliably. Currently, artificial insemination centers must have reliable and objective systems thatensure the reliability of reproductive data. The aim of this paper was to review computer-assisted semen analysisin livestock species. The use of CASA systems replace routine quality analyzes that introduce biases and leads to different inaccuracy degrees. In addition, if intrinsic limitations of microscopy or sperm with different motilitypatterns are considered, it is most likely that considerable variability will be introduced which will have an impact on the objectivity of the estimation. At first, this type of technology was inaccessible, but they are currently used routinelyin most research laboratories for the evaluation of sperm samples of different species of zootechnical interest..Computerized techniques are able to issue reports with a high number of characteristics, to minimize the subjectivefactor of routine semen analysis, and to ensure a better correlation with the fertilizing capacity of spermatozoa by the relationship between sperm motility and functional competence. The use of CASA systems together with multivariatestatistical analysis have demonstrated the existence of kinetic and morphometric subpopulations in ejaculates ofdifferent species, eliminating the idea that ejaculates are homogeneous, formed by a single sperm population with normal distribution.


Keywords


information systems; computer software; fertility; cattle; spermatozoa.

References


Álvarez-Lledó, C. 2003. Análisis integrado de morfología y movilidad espermática humana con el uso del sperm class analyzer. Tesis Dr., Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, ESP.

Amann, R.P., and R.H. Hammerstedt. 1993. In vitro evaluation of sperm quality: an opinion. J. Androl. 14:397-406. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.1993.tb03247.x

Amann, R.P., and D.F. Katz. 2004. Andrology Lab Corner: Reflections on CASA after 25 years. J. Androl. 25:317-25. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02793.x

Amann, R.P., and D. Waberski. 2014. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): capabili-ties and potential developments. Theriogenology 81:5-17. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.004.

Babamoradi, H., J.M. Amigo, F. van-den-Berg, M.R. Petersen, N. Satake, and G. Boe-Hansen. 2015. Quality assessment of boar semen by multivariate analysis of flow cytomet-ric data. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 142:219-230. doi:10.1016/j. chemolab.2015.02.008

Ball, B.A., and H.O. Mohammed. 1995. Morphometry of stallion spermatozoa by computer assisted image analysis. Theriogenology 44:367-377. doi:10.1016/0093-691X(95)00191-A

Barth, A.D. 2000. Bull breeding soundness evaluation manual. 2nd ed. The Western Canadi-an Association of Bovine Practitioners, Saskatonn, CAN.

Barth, A.D., and J. Oko. 1989. Abnormal morphology of bovine spermatozoa. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.

Blom, E. 1983. Pathological conditions in the genital organs and in the semen as grounds for rejection of breeding bulls for import and export to or from Denmark (an andrologic ret-rospective, 1958-1982). Nord.Vet. Med. 35:105-130.

Bonet, S., M.D. Briz, E. Pinart, S. Sancho, N. García-Gil, y E. Badia. 2000. Morfología espermática en porcino (Morphology of boar spermatozoa / Morfologia espermàtica en porcí). Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona ESP.

Bordignon, V., and L. Smith. 1999. Ultraviolet-irradiated spermatozoa activate oocytes but arrest preimplantation Development after fertilization and nuclear transplantation in cattle. Biol. Reprod. 61:1513-1520. doi:10.1095/biolreprod61.6.1513

Boyer, S.P., R.O. Davis, and D.F. Katz. 1989. Automated semen analysis. Curr. Probl. Ob-stet. Gynecol. Fertil. 5:167-200.

Castellini, C., A. Dal-Bosco, S. Ruggeri, and G. Collodel. 2011. What is the best frame rate for evaluation of sperm motility in different species by computer-assisted sperm analysis? Fertil Steril 96:24-27. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.04.096

Chandler, J.E., C.L. Painter, R.W. Adkison, M.A. Memon, and P.G. Hoyt. 1988. Semen quality characteristics of dairy goats. J. Dairy Sci. 71:1638-1646. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(88)79728-3

Den-Daas, J.H., G. De-Jong, L.M. Lansbergen, and A.M. Van-Wagtendonk-De-Leeuw. 1998. The relationship between the number of spermatozoa inseminated and the reproductive efficiency of individual dairy bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1714-1723. doi:10.3168/jsd.S0022-0302(98)75739-X

Dorado, J., L. Alcaráz, N. Duarte, J.M. Portero, D. Acha, S. Demyda, A. Muñoz-Serrano, and M. Hidalgo. 2011a. Centrifugation on PureSperm(®) density-gradient improved quality of spermatozoa from frozen-thawed dog semen. Theriogenology 76:381-385. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.02.026

Dorado, J., L. Alcaráz, N. Duarte, J.M. Portero, D. Acha, and M. Hidalgo. 2011b. Changes in the structures of motile sperm subpopulations in dog spermatozoa after both cryopreservation and centrifugation on PureSperm(®) gradient. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 125:211-218. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.03.013

Dorado, J., A. Muñoz-Serrano, and M. Hidalgo. 2010. The effect of cryopreservation on goat semen characteristics related to sperm freezability. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 121:115-123. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.04.182

Enciso, M., C. López-Fernández, J.L. Fernández, P. García, A. Gosálvez, and J.A. Gosálvez. 2006. A new method to analyze boar sperm DNA fragmentantion under bright-field or fluorescence microscopy. Theriogenology 65:308-316. doi:10.1016/j. theriogenology.2005.05.044

ESHRE (European Society for Human Reproduction and Embriology) Andrology Special Interest Group. 1998. Guidelines on the application of CASA technology in the analysis of spermatozoa. Hum. Reprod. 13:142-145.

Esteso, M.C., M.R. Fernández-Santos, A.J. Soler, V. Montoro, F. Martínez-Pastor, and J.J. Garde. 2009. Identification of Sperm- Head Morphometric Subpopulations in Iberian Red Deer Epididymal Sperm Samples. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 44:206- 211. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2007.01029.x

Evenson, D.P., K.L. Larson, and L.K. Jost. 2002. Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clin-ical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J. Androl. 23:25-43. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002. tb02599.x

Fatehi, A.N., M.M. Bevers, E. Schoevers, B.A. Roelen, B. Colenbrander, and B.M. Gadella. 2006. DNA damage in bovine sperm cells does not block fertilization but induces apoptosis after the first cleavages. J Androl. 27:176-188. doi:10.2164/jandrol.04152

Fernández, J.L., L. Muriel, M.T. Rivero, V. Goyanes, R. Vázquez, and J.G. Álvarez. 2003. The sperm chromatin dispersion test: a simple method for the determination of sperm DNA fragmentation. J. Androl. 24:59-66. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003. tb02641.x

García, P., B. Pérez, y J. Gosálvez. 2006. Estudio del nivel de fragmentación del ADN en semen de verraco. En:S. Bonet et al., editores, Manual de técnicas de reproducción asistida en porcino. Universidad de Gerona, y Red temática nacional de reproducción porcina, Gerona, ESP. p. 125-132.

García-Macías, V., P. de-Paz, F. Martínez-Pastor, M. Álvarez, S. Gomes-Alves, J. Bernardo, E. Anel, and L. Anel. 2007. DNA fragmentation assessment by flow cytometry and Sperm-Bos-Halomax (bright-field microscopy and fluorescence microscopy) in bull semen. Int. J. Androl. 30:88-98. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00723.x

Garner, D.L., L.A. Johnson, S.T. Yue, B.L. Roth, and R.P. Haugland. 1994. Dual DNA stain-ing assessment of bovine sperm viability using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. J. Androl. 15:620-629. doi: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.1194.tb00510.x

Graham, J.K. 2001. Assessment of sperm quality: a flow citometric approach. Anim. Re-prod. Sci. 68:249-265. doi: 10.1016/ S0378-4320(01)00160-9

Gil, M.C., M. García-Herreros, F.J. Barón, I.M. Aparicio, A.J. Santos, and L.J. García-Marín. 2009. Morphometry of porcine spermatozoa and its functional significance in relation with the motility parameters in fresh semen. Theriogenology 71:254-263. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.007

Hancock, J.L. 1956. The morphology of boar spermatozoa. J. Royal Microscop. Soc. 76:84-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1956. tb00443.x

Hidalgo, M., I. Rodríguez, and J. Dorado. 2006. Influence of staining and sampling proce-dures on goat sperm morphometry using the Sperm Class Analyzer. Theriogenology 66:996-1003. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.0239

Hidalgo, M., I. Rodríguez, J. Dorado, and C. Soler. 2008. Morphometric classification of Spanish thoroughbred stallion sperm heads. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 103:374-378. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.06.001

Ibănescu, I., C. Leiding, Ş.G. Ciornei, P. Roşca, I. Sfartz, and D. Drugociu. 2016. Differ-ences in CASA output according to the chamber type when analyzing frozen-thawed bull sperm. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 166:72-79. doi:10.1016/j. anireprosci.2016.01.005.

Januskauskas, A., A. Johannisson, and H. Rodriguez-Martinez. 2001. Assessment of sperm quality through fluorometry and sperm chromatin structure assay in relation to field fertility of frozen-thawed semen form Swedish Ai bulls. Theriogenology 55:947-961. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00456-3

Jasko, D.J., T.V. Little, D.H. Lein, and R.H. Foote. 1992. Comparison of spermatozoal movement and semen characteristics with fertility in stallions: 64 cases (1987-1988). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 200:979-985.

Johnson, J.E., W.R. Boone, and D.W. Blackhurst. 1996. Manual versus computer-automated semen analysis. Part III: Comparison of old versus new design MicroCell cham-bers. Fertil. Steril. 65:446-447. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58115-1

Link, L. 2011. Avaliação de machos reprodutores suínos: Como otimizar seu potencial genético e fertilidade. Trabajo final Medico Veterinario. Universiade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, BRA.

Maroto-Morales, A., M. Ramón, O. García-Álvarez, A.J. Soler, M.R. Fernández-Santos, E. R.S. Roldan, M. Gomendio, M.D. Pérez-Guzmán, and J.J. Garde. 2012. Morphometrically-distinct sperm subpopulations defined by a multi-step statistical procedure in ram Ejaculates: intra- and inter individual variation. Theriogenology 77:1529-1539. doi:10.1016/j. theriogenology.2011.11.020

Martí, J.I., I.M. Aparicio, C.L.V. Leal, and M. García-Herreros. 2012. Seasonal dynamics of sperm morphometric subpopulations and its association with sperm quality parameters in ram ejaculates. Theriogenology 78:528-41. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.02.035

Martínez-Pastor, F., E.J. Tizado, J.J. Garde, L. Anel, and P. de-Paz. 2011 Statistical se-ries: opportunities and challenges of sperm motility subpopulation analysis. Theriogenology 75:783-795. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.11.034

Mellagi, A.P.G., A. Panzardi, T. Bierhals, N.B. Gheller, M.L. Bernardi, L. Wentz, e F.P. Bortolozzo. 2013. Efeito da ordem de parto e da perda de peso durante a lactação no desempenho reprodutivo subsequente de matrizes suínas. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 65:819-825. doi:10.1590/S0102-09352013000300030

Miró, J., E. Taberner, M. Rivera, A. Peña, A. Medrano, T. Rigau, and A. Peñalba. 2009. Effects of dilution and centrifugation on the survival of spermatozoa and the structure of motile sperm cell subpopulations in refrigerated Catalonian donkey semen. Theriogenology 72:1017-1022. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.06.012

Mortimer, S.T. 2000. CASA-practical aspects. J. Androl. 21:515-524. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2000.tb02116.x

Muiño, R., A.I. Peña, A. Rodríguez, C. Tamargo, and C.O. Hidalgo. 2009. Effects of cryo-preservation on the motile sperm subpopulations in semen from Asturiana de los Valles bulls. Theriogenology 72:860-868. doi:10.1016/j. theriogenology.2009.06.009

Muiño, R., M.M. Rivera, T. Rigau, J.E. Rodríguez-Gil, and A.I. Peña. 2008. Effect of differ-ent thawing rates on post-thaw sperm viability, kinematic parameters and motile sperm subpopulations structure of bull semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 109:50-64. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.11.028

Ostermeier, G.C., G.A. Sargeant, B.S. Yandell, and J.R. Parrish. 2001. Measurement of bovine sperm nuclear shape using Fourier harmonic amplitudes. J. Androl. 22:584-94. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2001.tb02218.x

Overstreet, J.W., D.F. Katz, F.W. Hanson, and J.R. Fonseca. 1979. A simple, inexpensive method for objective assessment of human sperm movement characteristics. Fertil. Steril. 31:162-172. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)43817-3

Peña, F.J., F. Saravia, M. García-Herreros, I. Núñez-Martínez, J.A. Tapia, A. Johannisson, M. Wallgren, and H. Rodríguez- Martínez. 2005. Identification of sperm morphometric sub-populations in two different portions of the boar ejaculate and its relation to post thaw quali-ty. J. Androl. 26:716-723. doi:10.2164/jandrol.05030

Rabinovith, J. 2007. SQA: Determining % normal morphology. Medical Electronic Systems. www.mes-global.com/ LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=92176 (accessed 10 Aug. 2017).

Rodríguez Martínez, H. 2000. Evaluation of frozen semen: Traditional and new approach-es. In: P.J. Chenoweth, editor, Topics in bull fertility. International Veterinary Information Service. Ithaca, NY, USA. p. 502-600.

Rodríguez-Martínez, H. 2003. Laboratory semen assessment and prediction of fertility: still utopia? Reprod. Domest. Anim. 38:312-318. doi:10.10466/j.1439-0531.2003.00436.x

Rurangwa, E., D.E. Kime, F. Ollevier, and J.P. Nash. 2004. The measurements of sperm motility and factors affecting sperm quality in cultured fish. Aquaculture 234:1-28. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.12.006

Sadeghi, S., A. García-Molina, F. Celma, A. Valverde, S. Fereidounfar, and C. Soler. 2016. Morphometric comparison by the ISAS® CASA-DNAf system of two techniques for the evaluation of DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Asian J. Androl. 18:835-839. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.186875

Shannon, P., and R. Vishwanath. 1995. The effect of optimal and suboptimal concentrations of sperm on the fertility of fresh and frozen bovine semen and a theoretical model to explain the fertility differences. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 39:1-10. doi:10.1016/0378-4320(95)01376-B

Soler, C., J. Kekäläinen, M. Núñez, M. Sancho, J. Núñez, I. Yaber, and R. Gutiérrez. 2012. Male facial anthropometry and attractiveness. Perception 41:1234-1245. doi:10.1068/p7214

Thomas, C.A., D.L. Garner, J.M. DeJarnette, and C.E. Marshall. 1998. Effect of cryopres-ervation of bovine sperm organelle function and viability as determined by flow cytometry. Biol. Reprod. 58:786-793. doi:10.1095/biolreprod58.3.786

Valverde, A., H. Arenán, M. Sancho, J. Contell, J. Yániz, A. Fernández, and C. Soler. 2016. Morphometry and subpopulation structure of Holstein bull spermatozoa: variations in ejaculates and cryopreservation straws. Asian J. Androl. 18:851-857. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.187579

Verstegen, J., M. Iguer-Ouada, and K. Onclin. 2002. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57:149-179. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00664-1

Watson, P.F. 1981. The roles of lipid and protein in the protection of ram spermatozoa at 5 degrees oC by egg-yolk lipoprotein. J. Reprod. Fert. 62:483-492.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction, 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, GBR.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Comments on this article

View all comments




Copyright (c) 2018 Mesoamerican Agronomy

© 2017 Universidad de Costa Rica. Para ver más detalles sobre la distribución de los artículos en este sitio visite el aviso legal. Este sitio es desarrollado por UCRIndex y Open Journal Systems. ¿Desea cosechar nuestros metadatos? dirección OAI-PMH: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/index/oai