Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Sperm Cell Morphology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Protocols in Semen Biology (Comparing Assays)

Abstract

Evaluation of morphology of sperm cells is a vital step in the quality assessment of spermatozoa. Morphological assessment of spermatozoa involves staining with suitable probe. This chapter outlines several protocols of sperm morphology assessment which are, hitherto, rarely used, e.g. Papanicolaou, Shorr and Bryan/Leishman staining, in addition to describing several traditional ones currently used in the semen laboratories. Though protocol for commercial kits is not described here for obvious reasons, their demerits vis-à-vis other protocols requiring semen smear preparation step are given importance here for the benefit of the investigator. This chapter includes semen smear preparatory techniques in detail to make the chapter more complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literature Cited

  1. Katz DF, Overstreet JW, Samuels SJ, Niswander PW, Bloom TD, Lewis EL (1986) Morphometric analysis of spermatozoa in the assessment of human male fertility. J Androl 7:203–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aksoy E, Aktan TM, Duman S, Cuce G (2012) Assessment of spermatozoa morphology under light microscopy with different histologic stains and comparison of morphometric measurements. Int J Morphol 30(4):1544–1550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Soler C, Perez-Sanchez SCA, Schulze K, Yeung CH, Cooper TG (2000) Objective evaluation of the morphology of human epididymal sperm heads. Intl J Androl 23:77–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper TG, Yeung CH, Fetic S, Sobhani A, Nieschlag E (2004) Cytoplasmic droplets are normal structures of human spermatozoa but are not well preserved by routine procedures for assessing sperm morphology. Hum Reprod 19:2283–2288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kovacs A, Foote RH (1992) Viability and acrosome staining of bull, boar and rabbit spermatozoa. Biotech Histochem 67:119–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beletti ME, Mello ML (2004) Comparison between the toluidine blue stain and the Feulgen reaction for evaluation of rabbit sperm chromatin condensation and their relationship with sperm morphology. Theriogenology 62(3-4):398–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tartaglione CM, Ritta MN (2004) Prognostic value of spermatological parameters as predictors of in vitro fertility of frozen-thawed bull semen. Theriogenology 62(7):1245–1252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Cooper TG (ed) 5th edn. World Health Organization 2010, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  9. Menkveld R, Lacquet FA, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, de Villiers A (1997) Effects of different staining and washing procedures on the results of human sperm morphology evaluation by manual and computerised methods. Andrologia 29(1):1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Milingos S, Comhaire FH, Liapi A, Aravantinos D (1996) The value of semen characteristics and tests of sperm function in selecting couples for intra-uterine insemination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 64(1):115–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ulstein M, Capell P, Holme K, Paulsen CA (1976) Nonsymptomatic genital tract infection and male infertility. In: Human semen and fertility regulation in men. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hotchkiss RS (1945) Fertility in men. William Heineman Medical Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eliasson R (1971) Standards for investigation of human semen. Andrologia 3:49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Menkveld R, Stander ESH, KotzeTJW KTF, Zyl JA (1990) The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 5:586–592

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giemsa G (1904) Eine Vereinfachung und Vervollkommnung meiner Methylenblau-Eosin-Färbemethode zur Erzielung der Romanowsky-Nocht’schen Chromatinfärbung. Centralblatt für Bakteriologie I Abteilung 32:307–313

    Google Scholar 

  16. Watson PF (1975) Use of Giemsa stain to detect change in acrosome of frozen ram spermatozoa. Vet Rec 97:12–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boccia L, Di Palo R, Rosa D, Attanasio L, Mariotti E, Gasparrini B (2007) Evaluation of buffalo semen by Trypan blue/Giemsa staining and related fertility in vitro. Italian J Anim Sci 6(sup2):739–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nagy SZ, Hazas G, Bali Papp Á, Ivancsics J, Szasz F, Szasz FJR, Kovacs A, Foote RH (1999) Evaluation of sperm tail membrane integrity by light microscopy. Theriogenology 52:1153–1159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Belsey MA, Elliasson R, Gallegos AJ, Moghissi KS, Paulsen CA, Prasad MRN (1980) Laboratory Manual for the examination of Human semen and semen-cervical mucous interactions, WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Press Concern, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  20. Biggers JD, Whitten WK, Whittingham DG (1971) The culture of mouse embryos in vitro. In: Daniel JC (ed) Methodsin mammalian embryology. WH Freeman, San Francisco, pp 86–116

    Google Scholar 

  21. Quinn P, Kerin JF, Warnes GM (1985) Improved pregnancy rate in human in-vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil Steril 44:493–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shorr E (1941) A new technique for staining vaginal smears. III: A single differential stain. Science 94:545–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Meschede D, Kech C, Zander M, Cooper TG, Yeung CH, Nieschlag E (1993) Influence of three different preparation techniques on the results of human sperm morphology analysis. Intl J Androl 16:362–369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Couture M, Ulstein M, Leonard J, Paulsen CA (1976) Improved staining method for differentiating immature germ cells from white blood cells in human seminal fluid. Andrologia 8(1):61–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar S, Singh LP (2003) Thawing of frozen semen and evaluation of quality of post-thawed semen. AnupamPrinting Press, Bareilly, pp 71–72

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ragni G, Marzioli S, Levenberg A, Guercilena S (1984) Comparison of the various techniques of identifying human spermatozoa morphology. Acta Eur Fertil 15:437–440

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. James A. Gosey (1996) In: Neb Guide G-83-666-A, Cooperative Extension Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincolan

    Google Scholar 

Key References

  1. Aksoy and othere (2012) See above [2] In-depth discussion and excellent background information related to merits of different staining techniques

    Google Scholar 

  2. WHO laboratory manual, 5th edn (2010) See above [8] For excellent explanation of semen evaluation protocols including protocols and semen smear preparation technique

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar and Singh (2003) See above [25] For procedures related to routine morphological evaluation of spermatozoa

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quality Control, Semen Freezing Laboratory, ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Cattle, Meerut, 250001, Uttar Pradesh, India

    N. Srivastava

  2. Animal Physiology and Embryo Transfer Laboratory, ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Cattle, Meerut, 250001, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Megha Pande

  3. Division of Animal Reproduction, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, 243122, India

    Omer Din

Authors
  1. N. Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megha Pande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omer Din
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Srivastava .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Quality Control, Semen Freezing Laboratory, ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Cattle, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

    N. Srivastava

  2. Animal Physiology and Embryo Transfer Laboratory, ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Cattle, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Megha Pande

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Srivastava, N., Pande, M., Din, O. (2017). Evaluating Sperm Cell Morphology. In: Srivastava, N., Pande, M. (eds) Protocols in Semen Biology (Comparing Assays). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5200-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation