Standards in semen examination: publishing reproducible and reliable data based on high-quality methodology.

Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline Part I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part I outlines the appropriate evaluation of the male in an infertile couple. Recommendations proceed from obtaining an appropriate history and physical exam (Appendix I), as well as diagnostic testing, where indicated. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January, 2000 through May, 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation of male infertility as well as the association of male infertility with other important health conditions. The detection of male infertility increases the risk of subsequent development of health problems for men. In addition, specific medical conditions are associated with some causes for male infertility. Evaluation and treatment recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: The presence of male infertility is crucial to the health of patients and its effects must be considered for the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

'Man Up': the importance and strategy for placing male reproductive health centre stage in the political and research agenda.

Approximately 1 in 20 young men today have sperm counts low enough to impair fertility, whereas this may not have been the case historically. The cause(s) of such a decline in male reproductive health is unknown, despite it being a global health issue. Concomitantly, little progress has been made in answering fundamental questions in andrology or in developing new diagnostic tools or alternative management strategies to ICSI in infertile men. We advocate formulation of a detailed roadmap for male reproductive health to facilitate development of a research agenda that highlights the present unmet needs and key unanswered questions, and seeks to deliver effective funding and investment to address them. This vision we term 'a Male Reproductive Health Ecosystem'.

A clinical assay for reactive oxygen species - ready for primetime?

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been demonstrated to have damaging effects on human sperm function. The measurement of ROS as an adjunct to traditional semen analysis has clinical relevance as part of the diagnosis of male infertility. The assay best suited to the clinical laboratory environment for detecting ROS generation remains somewhat controversial. A recent report on a multicenter study evaluating the reduction of nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) to formazan precipitate as an indirect reporter of ROS-generating activity in spermatozoa, seminal plasma and semen has received a critique raising questions as to the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for detecting ROS. The authors of the report argue in response that the assay has validity and yields results that are potentially clinically significant. This dialogue serves to (re)direct readers to the original article and to consider carefully the intent and potential application of the assay, and whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to judiciously support its clinical diagnostic application.

Comparison of epigenetic mediator expression and function in mouse and human embryonic blastomeres.

A map of human embryo development that combines imaging, molecular, genetic and epigenetic data for comparisons to other species and across pathologies would be greatly beneficial for basic science and clinical applications. Here, we compared mRNA and protein expression of key mediators of DNA methylation and histone modifications between mouse and human embryos, embryos from fertile/infertile couples, and following growth factor supplementation. We observed that individual mouse and human embryos are characterized by similarities and distinct differences in DNA methylation and histone modification patterns especially at the single-cell level. In particular, while mouse embryos first exhibited sub-compartmentalization of different histone modifications between blastomeres at the morula stage and cell sub-populations in blastocysts, differential histone modification expression was detected between blastomeres earlier in human embryos at the four- to eight-cell stage. Likewise, differences in epigenetic mediator expression were also observed between embryos from fertile and infertile couples, which were largely equalized in response to growth factor supplementation, suggesting that select growth factors might prevent alterations in epigenetic profiles during prolonged embryo culture. Finally, we determined that reduced expression via morpholino technologies of a single histone-modifying enzyme, Rps6ka4/Msk2, resulted in cleavage-stage arrest as assessed by time-lapse imaging and was associated with aneuploidy generation. Taken together, data document differences in epigenetic patterns between species with implications for fertility and suggest functional roles for individual epigenetic factors during pre-implantation development.

Frequency, morbidity and equity - the case for increased research on male fertility.

Currently, most men with infertility cannot be given an aetiology, which reflects a lack of knowledge around gamete production and how it is affected by genetics and the environment. A failure to recognize the burden of male infertility and its potential as a biomarker for systemic illness exists. The absence of such knowledge results in patients generally being treated as a uniform group, for whom the strategy is to bypass the causality using medically assisted reproduction (MAR) techniques. In doing so, opportunities to prevent co-morbidity are missed and the burden of MAR is shifted to the woman. To advance understanding of men's reproductive health, longitudinal and multi-national centres for data and sample collection are essential. Such programmes must enable an integrated view of the consequences of genetics, epigenetics and environmental factors on fertility and offspring health. Definition and possible amelioration of the consequences of MAR for conceived children are needed. Inherent in this statement is the necessity to promote fertility restoration and/or use the least invasive MAR strategy available. To achieve this aim, protocols must be rigorously tested and the move towards personalized medicine encouraged. Equally, education of the public, governments and clinicians on the frequency and consequences of infertility is needed. Health options, including male contraceptives, must be expanded, and the opportunities encompassed in such investment understood. The pressing questions related to male reproductive health, spanning the spectrum of andrology are identified in the Expert Recommendation.

Current global status of male reproductive health.

BACKGROUND: The widespread interest in male reproductive health (MRH), fueled by emerging evidence, such as the global decline in sperm counts, has intensified concerns about the status of MRH. Consequently, there is a pressing requirement for a strategic, systematic approach to identifying critical questions, collecting pertinent information, and utilizing these data to develop evidence-based strategies. The methods for addressing these questions and the pathways toward their answers will inevitably vary based on the variations in cultural, geopolitical, and health-related contexts. To address these issues, a conjoint ESHRE and Male Reproductive Health Initiative (MRHI) Campus workshop was convened. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The three objectives were: first, to assess the current state of MRH around the world; second, to identify some of the key gaps in knowledge; and, third, to examine how MRH stakeholders can collaboratively generate intelligent and effective paths forward. SEARCH METHODS: Each expert reviewed and summarized the current literature that was subsequently used to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges related to MRH. OUTCOMES: This narrative report is an overview of the data, opinions, and arguments presented during the workshop. A number of outcomes are presented and can be summarized by the following overarching themes: MRH is a serious global issue and there is a plethora of gaps in our understanding; there is a need for widespread international collaborative networks to undertake multidisciplinary research into fundamental issues, such as lifestyle/environmental exposure studies, and high-quality clinical trials; and there is an urgent requirement for effective strategies to educate young people and the general public to safeguard and improve MRH across diverse population demographics and resources. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a workshop where worldwide leading experts from a wide range of disciplines presented and discussed the evidence regarding challenges related to MRH. While each expert summarized the current literature and placed it in context, the data in a number of areas are limited and/or sparse. Equally, important areas for consideration may have been missed. Moreover, there are clear gaps in our knowledge base, which makes some conclusions necessarily speculative and warranting of further study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Poor MRH is a global issue that suffers from low awareness among the public, patients, and heathcare professionals. Addressing this will require a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Addressing the significant number of knowledge gaps will require policy makers prioritizing MRH and its funding. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors would like to extend their gratitude to ESHRE for providing financial support for the Budapest Campus Workshop, as well as to Microptic S.L. (Barcelona) for kindly sponsoring the workshop. P.B. is the Director of the not-for-profit organization Global Action on Men's Health and receives fees and expenses for his work, (which includes the preparation of this manuscript). Conflicts of interest: C.J.D.J., C.L.R.B., R.A.A., P.B., M.P.C., M.L.E., N.G., N.J., C.K., AAP, M.K.O., S.R.-H., M.H.V.-L.: ESHRE Campus Workshop 2022 (Travel support-personal). C.J.D.J.: Cambridge University Press (book royalties-personal). ESHRE Annual Meeting 2022 and Yale University Panel Meeting 2023 (Travel support-personal). C.L.R.B.: Ferring and IBSA (Lecture), RBMO editor (Honorarium to support travel, etc.), ExSeed and ExScentia (University of Dundee), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for research on contraception). M.P.C.: Previously received funding from pharmaceutical companies for health economic research. The funding was not in relation to this work and had no bearing on the contents of this work. No funding from other sources has been provided in relation to this work (funding was provided to his company Global Market Access Solutions). M.L.E.: Advisor to Ro, Doveras, Next, Hannah, Sandstone. C.K.: European Academy of Andrology (Past president UNPAID), S.K.: CEO of His Turn, a male fertility Diagnostic and Therapeutic company (No payments or profits to date). R.I.M.: www.healthymale.org.au (Australian Government funded not for profit in men's health sector (Employed as Medical Director 0.2 FET), Monash IVF Pty Ltd (Equity holder)). N.J.: Merck (consulting fees), Gedeon Richter (honoraria). S.R.-H.: ESHRE (Travel reimbursements). C.N.: LLC (Nursing educator); COMMIT (Core Outcomes Measures for Infertility Trials) Advisor, meeting attendee, and co-author; COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) Meeting attendee, and co-author; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Delegate Letters and Sciences; ReproNovo, Advisory board; American Board of Urology Examiner; American Urological Association Journal subsection editor, committee member, guidelines co-author Ferring Scientific trial NexHand Chief Technology Officer, stock ownership Posterity Health Board member, stock ownership. A.P.: Economic and Social Research Council (A collaborator on research grant number ES/W001381/1). Member of an advisory committee for Merck Serono (November 2022), Member of an advisory board for Exceed Health, Speaker fees for educational events organized by Mealis Group; Chairman of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee: All fees associated with this are paid to his former employer The University of Sheffield. Trustee of the Progress Educational Trust (Unpaid). M.K.O.: National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (Funding for research of the topic of male fertility), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Funding aimed at the development of male gamete-based contraception), Medical Research Future Fund (Funding aimed at defining the long-term consequences of male infertility). M.H.V.-L.: Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH)/Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Panel RP2/WHO Review Member; MRHI (Core Group Member), COMMIT (member), EGOI (Member); Human Reproduction (Associate Editor), Fertility and Sterility (Editor), AndroLATAM (Founder and Coordinator).

Research funding for male reproductive health and infertility in the UK and USA [2016 - 2019].

There is a paucity of data on research funding levels for male reproductive health (MRH). We investigated the research funding for MRH and infertility by examining publicly accessible web-databases from the UK and USA government funding agencies. Information on the funding was collected from the UKRI-GTR, the NIHR's Open Data Summary, and the USA's NIH RePORT web-databases. Funded projects between January 2016 and December 2019 were recorded and funding support was divided into three research categories: (i) male-based; (ii) female-based; and (iii) not-specified. Between January 2016 and December 2019, UK agencies awarded a total of £11,767,190 to 18 projects for male-based research and £29,850,945 to 40 projects for female-based research. There was no statistically significant difference in the median funding grant awarded within the male-based and female-based categories (p = 0.56, W = 392). The USA NIH funded 76 projects totalling $59,257,746 for male-based research and 99 projects totalling $83,272,898 for female-based research Again, there was no statistically significant difference in the median funding grant awarded between the two research categories (p = 0.83, W = 3834). This is the first study examining funding granted by main government research agencies from the UK and USA for MRH. This results should stimulate further discussion of the challenges of tackling male infertility and reproductive health disorders and formulating appropriate investment strategies.

Male Attitudes towards Infertility: Results from a Global Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: In general, men are less likely to seek health care than women. Infertility is a global disease that afflicts approximately 15% of reproductive age couples and the male contributes to 40% of the diagnosable cause. Remarkably, no large or multi-national population data exist regarding men's perceptions about their infertility. The purpose of this study was to advance our knowledge about the infertile male's social experience regarding: (1) how they feel about their infertility, (2) what motivated them to seek health care, (3) how likely are they to talk with others about their infertility, (4) their awareness of male infertility support groups, and (5) what their primary source for information is regarding male infertility? Based on the results from this study, these simple questions now have clearer definition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved, male-directed, anonymous questionnaire translated into 20 languages was made globally available through the Fertility Europe website (https://fertilityeurope.eu). Males (n=1,171) age 20-49 years were invited to complete the online survey after informed consent. RESULTS: Most respondents were European (86%). Of European men, <15.8% were self-motivated to seek medical help. Further, their physician was not the primary source of information regarding their infertility. While most men (59%) viewed their infertility positively, a large majority were not very likely (73%) to talk about it. Most respondents indicated a lack of awareness or absence of male infertility support groups. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first multi-national population data revealing men's feelings about their infertility, what motivates them to seek help and their awareness of resources for peer support and information. These findings also serve to highlight significant gaps that exist in the provision of male reproductive health care and in supportive resources for men suffering from infertility. We offer recommendations on how to address the problem(s).

Evaluation of the novel vaginal contraceptive agent PPCM in preclinical studies using sperm hyaluronan binding and acrosome status assays.

BACKGROUND: Polyphenylene carboxymethylene (PPCM) sodium salt is a promising multipurpose technology for prevention of both sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and pregnancy. In preclinical studies, PPCM has demonstrated significant (1) antimicrobial activity against several important viral and bacterial pathogens and (2) contraceptive activity associated with premature acrosome loss. OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate a vaginal antimicrobial compound as a contraceptive agent in preclinical studies utilizing a repurposed hyaluronan binding assay (HBA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semen samples containing either neat semen or washed spermatozoa were treated with increasing concentrations of PPCM or calcium ionophore A23187 (positive control). Sperm inactivation was measured by two methods: (1) double acrosome staining (AS), and (2) a hyaluronan binding assay (HBA® ). Percentage of inactivated sperm was compared between untreated control sperm and those treated with PPCM or A23187. RESULTS: PPCM had a significant (p < 0.05) and dose-dependent effect on sperm inactivation in both assays, with HBA detecting a higher proportion of inactivated sperm than AS. PPCM did not affect sperm motility and exhibited equivalent responses in the neat and washed samples. DISCUSSION: Both HBA and AS confirmed that spermatozoa were rapidly inactivated at PPCM concentrations likely present in the vagina under actual use conditions and in a time-frame comparable to in vivo migration of spermatozoa out of seminal plasma into cervical mucus. CONCLUSION: PPCM vaginal gel may provide contraceptive protection as well as help with STI prevention. HBA may be a sensitive and much needed biomarker for sperm activity in future contraceptive development.

A global approach to addressing the policy, research and social challenges of male reproductive health.

Male infertility is a global health issue; yet to a large extent, our knowledge of its causes, impact and consequence is largely unknown. Recent data indicate that infertile men have an increased risk of somatic disorders such as cancer and die younger compared to fertile men. Moreover, several studies point to a significant adverse effect on the health of the offspring. From the startling lack of progress in male contraception combined with the paucity of improvements in the diagnosis of male infertility, we conclude there is a crisis in male reproductive health. The Male Reproductive Health Initiative has been organized to directly address these issues (www.eshre.eu/Specialty-groups/Special-Interest-Groups/Andrology/MRHI). The Working Group will formulate an evidence-based strategic road map outlining the ways forward. This is an open consortium desiring to engage with all stakeholders and governments.

Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part I outlines the appropriate evaluation of the male in an infertile couple. Recommendations proceed from obtaining an appropriate history and physical exam (Appendix I), as well as diagnostic testing, where indicated. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January, 2000 through May, 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation of male infertility as well as the association of male infertility with other important health conditions. The detection of male infertility increases the risk of subsequent development of health problems for men. In addition, specific medical conditions are associated with some causes for male infertility. Evaluation and treatment recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: The presence of male infertility is crucial to the health of patients and its effects must be considered for the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

The diagnosis of male infertility: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance-challenges and future research opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Herein, we describe the consensus guideline methodology, summarize the evidence-based recommendations we provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) for their consideration in the development of global guidance and present a narrative review of the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized (problem or population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C) and outcome(s) (O) (PICO)) questions. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and research gaps identified during the synthesis of this evidence. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this paper is to present an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized PICO questions. SEARCH METHODS: Collating the evidence to support providing recommendations involved a collaborative process as developed by WHO, namely: identification of priority questions and critical outcomes; retrieval of up-to-date evidence and existing guidelines; assessment and synthesis of the evidence; and the formulation of draft recommendations to be used for reaching consensus with a wide range of global stakeholders. For each draft recommendation the quality of the supporting evidence was then graded and assessed for consideration during a WHO consensus. OUTCOMES: Evidence was synthesized and recommendations were drafted to address the diagnosis of male infertility specifically encompassing the following: What is the prevalence of male infertility and what proportion of infertility is attributable to the male? Is it necessary for all infertile men to undergo a thorough evaluation? What is the clinical (ART/non ART) value of traditional semen parameters? What key male lifestyle factors impact on fertility (focusing on obesity, heat and tobacco smoking)? Do supplementary oral antioxidants or herbal therapies significantly influence fertility outcomes for infertile men? What are the evidence-based criteria for genetic screening of infertile men? How does a history of neoplasia and related treatments in the male impact on (his and his partner's) reproductive health and fertility options? And lastly, what is the impact of varicocele on male fertility and does correction of varicocele improve semen parameters and/or fertility? WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This evidence synthesis analysis has been conducted in a manner to be considered for global applicability for the diagnosis of male infertility.

Comparison of chromatin assays for DNA fragmentation evaluation in human sperm.

Sperm chromatin integrity is vital for successful pregnancy and transmission of genetic material to the offspring. We evaluated chromatin integrity in sperm from 60 infertile men and 7 fertile donors comparing the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), TdT-mediated-dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL), the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, and acridine orange staining technique (AOT). The TUNEL and SCD assays showed a strong relationship with the SCSA (r > .866; P < .001) for sperm DNA fragmentation, both in infertile men and donors of known fertility. AOT did not show any relationship with SCSA. The breakdown of the DNA fragmentation index (DFI) into 3 categories (< or =15%, >15%-<30%, and > or =30%) showed that the SCSA, TUNEL, and SCD test predict the same levels of DNA fragmentation. AOT consistently showed higher levels of DNA fragmentation for each DFI category. DNA fragmentation in sperm between infertile men and donor sperm was significantly different (P < .05) under SCSA (22.0 +/- 1.6 vs 11.8 +/- 1.4), TUNEL (19.5 +/- 1.3 vs 11.1 +/- 0.9) and SCD (20.4 +/- 1.3 vs 10.8 +/- 1.1), respectively. DNA fragmentation in sperm evaluated by AOT did not differ (P > .05) between infertile men (31.3 +/- 2.4) and donors (32.7 +/- 4.8). AOT showed extreme variations for sperm DNA fragmentation in semen from both infertile men and donors. The problems of indistinct colors, rapid fading, and the heterogeneous staining were also faced. In conclusion, SCSA, TUNEL, and SCD show similar predictive values for DNA fragmentation, and AOT shows variable and increased levels of DNA fragmentation, which makes it of questionable value in clinical practice.

The future of reproductive cellular engineering in male infertility.

Understanding of the pathophysiology of defective spermatogenesis, spermatozoa, and germ cell function must be advanced so that appropriate rational treatment, such as gene therapy, can be developed. Despite the dramatic advances in ART, one ultimate goal must be to develop treatment so that the couple can conceive naturally. Because such treatment will not be possible in all cases, a complementary step will be the ability to induce the production of haploid, functionally competent germ cells that can be used for ART. The achievement of these goals will be based on advances in many other disciplines. Whatever the future holds, it promises to be exciting.

Methods for the assessment of sperm capacitation and acrosome reaction excluding the sperm penetration assay.

Assessing the ability of human spermatozoa to acquire fertilizing potential (capacitation) by stimulating exocytosis of the contents of the acrosome (acrosome reaction) is thought to have diagnostic potential (De Jonge, Reprod Med Rev 3:159-178, 1994). Calcium-mobilizing agents, such as calcium ionophores (A23187) and progesterone, stimulate the acrosome reaction in vitro (Brucker and Lipford, Hum Reprod Update 1:51-62, 1995). Acrosomal status is easily detected using Pisum sativum Agglutinin labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (Cross and Meizel, Biol Reprod 41:635-641, 1989). Herein we describe a procedure for assessing capacitation and the acrosome reaction of human spermatozoa in vitro.