A comparison of conventional and computer-assisted semen analysis (CRISMAS software) using samples from 166 young Danish men.
ABSTRACT The aim of the present study was to compare assessments of sperm concentration and sperm motility analysed by conventional semen analysis with those obtained by computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) (Copenhagen Rigshospitalet Image House Sperm Motility Analysis System (CRISMAS) 4.6 software) using semen samples from 166 young Danish men. The CRISMAS software identifies sperm concentration and classifies spermatozoa into three motility categories. To enable comparison of the two methods, the four motility stages obtained by conventional semen analysis were, based on their velocity classifications, divided into three stages, comparable to the three CRISMAS motility categories: rapidly progressive (A), slowly progressive (B) and non-progressive (C+D). Differences between the two methods were large for all investigated parameters (P < 0.001). CRISMAS overestimated sperm concentration and the proportion of rapidly progressive spermatozoa and, consequently, underestimated the percentages of slowly progressive and non-progressive spermatozoa, compared to the conventional method. To investigate whether results drifted according to time of semen analysis, results were pooled into quarters according to date of semen analysis. CRISMAS motility results appeared more stable over time compared to the conventional analysis; however, neither method showed any trends. Apparently, CRISMAS CASA results and results from the conventional method were not comparable with respect to sperm concentration and motility analysis. This needs to be accounted for in clinics using this software and in studies of determinants of these semen characteristics.
- SourceAvailable from: Thorhallur I Halldorsson[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Perfluorinated alkyl acids (PFAAs) are persistent chemicals with unique water-, dirt-, and oil-repellent properties, and suspected endocrine disrupting activity. The PFAA compounds perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) are found globally in humans, and since they readily cross the placental barrier, in utero exposure may be a cause of concern. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether in utero exposure to PFOA and PFOS affects semen quality, testicular volume, and reproductive hormone profile. METHODS: We recruited 169 male offspring (19-21 years old) of a pregnancy cohort established in Aarhus, Denmark in 1988-89, corresponding to 37.6% of the eligible sons. Each provided a semen sample that was analysed for sperm concentration, total count, motility, and morphology, and a blood sample that was used to measure reproductive hormones. As a proxy of in utero exposure, PFOA and PFOS were measured in maternal blood samples from pregnancy week 30. RESULTS: Multivariable linear regression analysis suggested that in utero exposure to PFOA was associated with lower adjusted sperm concentration (p trend=0.01) and total sperm count (p trend=0.001), and with higher adjusted levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) (p trend=0.03) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) (p trend=0.01). PFOS did not appear to be associated with any of the outcomes assessed, before or after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that in utero exposure to PFOA may affect adult human male semen quality and reproductive hormone levels.Environmental Health Perspectives 01/2013; · 7.26 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) system has been accepted and used commonly as a routine semen analysis instrument in hospital clinical laboratories worldwide. However, technicians in clinical laboratories have little informed knowledge about the principles of CASA system and the sources of analysis errors. In this review, we focus on the concept of CASA, the development course of CASA technology, the clinical application of CASA systems and the factors influencing the accuracies of results, such as frame rate, sperm counting chambers affiliated to the CASA system, algorithms and sperm concentration. These factors and lack of internal quality control may result in huge errors of the CASA between systems and laboratories. It is therefore necessary to perform the standardisation and quality control for CASA.Andrologia 04/2013; · 1.55 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this study, we examined different computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) systems (CRISMAS, Hobson Sperm Tracker, and Image J CASA) on the exact same video recordings to evaluate the differences in sperm motility parameters related to the specific CASA used. To cover a wide range of sperm motility parameters, we chose 12-second video recordings at 25 and 50 Hz frame rates after sperm motility activation using three taxonomically distinct fish species (sterlet: Acipenser ruthenus L.; common carp: Cyprinus carpio L.; and rainbow trout: Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) that are characterized by essential differences in sperm behavior during motility. Systematically higher values of velocity and beat cross frequency (BCF) were observed in video recordings obtained at 50 Hz frame frequency compared with 25 Hz for all three systems. Motility parameters were affected by the CASA and species used for analyses. Image J and CRISMAS calculated higher curvilinear velocity (VCL) values for rainbow trout and common carp at 25 Hz frequency compared with the Hobson Sperm Tracker, whereas at 50 Hz, a significant difference was observed only for rainbow trout sperm recordings. No significant difference was observed between the CASA systems for sterlet sperm motility at 25 and 50 Hz. Additional analysis of 1-second segments taken at three time points (1, 6, and 12 seconds of the recording) revealed a dramatic decrease in common carp and rainbow trout sperm speed. The motility parameters of sterlet spermatozoa did not change significantly during the 12-second motility period and should be considered as a suitable model for longer motility analyses. Our results indicated that the CASA used can affect motility results even when the same motility recordings are used. These results could be critically altered by the recording quality, time of analysis, and frame rate of camera, and could result in erroneous conclusions.Theriogenology 08/2013; · 2.08 Impact Factor