[Influence of different filling method-related sperm counting chambers and structural factors of disposable chambers on sperm motility].

Objective: To evaluate the effects of different filling method-related sperm counting chambers and the structural factors of Leja counting chambers on sperm motility using computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA). METHODS: Using drop-filled Makler, capillary-loaded Leja and structurally modified Leja sperm counting chambers, we measured sperm concentration, the percentages of progressively motile sperm (PMS) and non-progressively motile sperm (NPMS), total sperm motility, curvilinear velocity (VCL), average path velocity (VAP), straight line velocity (VSL), beat-cross frequency (BCF), linearity (LIN), wobble (WOB) and straightness (STR) in the semen samples of 76 males by CASA and compared them between different chambers. RESULTS: The drop-filled Makler sperm counting chamber achieved remarkably higher PMS, NPMS, total sperm motility, VCL and VAP than the Leja chambers (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in VSL, BCF, LIN, WOB and STR between the Makler and Leja chambers (P > 0.05), or in sperm concentration, PMS, NPMS and total sperm motility between the capillary-loaded and structurally modified Leja counting chambers (P > 0.05). The ground edge and thickness of the coverslip of the Leja counting chamber produced no significant inference on the kinetic sperm parameters (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The drop-filled sperm counting chamber achieves significantly higher sperm motility and kinetic parameters than the capillary-loaded Leja chamber. The structural factors such as the ground edge and thickness of the coverslip of the Leja counting chamber do not influence the analysis of sperm parameters.

[Location of semen collection and semen quality: clinic-collected versus home-collected samples].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differences in semen quality between samples collected by masturbation in the clinic and at home. METHODS: Based on the WHO guidelines, we analyzed the ejaculates collected by masturbation in the clinic and at home from 342 men under infertility assessment and measured the contents of such biochemical markers in the seminal plasma as neutral α-glucosidase, zinc, and fructose. According to the location of semen collection, we divided the samples into two groups, clinic-collected and home-collected, and analyzed the differences in the semen parameters between the two groups with the SPSS 16.0 software. RESULTS: Compared with the clinic-collected semen, the home-collected samples had significantly higher mean values in semen volume (4.0 vs 4.9%), sperm concentration (41 vs 64 x 10(6)/ml), total sperm count (175 vs 270 x 10(6) per ejaculate), progressive sperm motility (40 vs 52%), total count of progressively motile sperm (82 vs 135 x 10(6) per ejaculate) (all P <0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in normal sperm morphology (4.0 vs 5.0%) and the contents of neutral α-glucosidase (26 vs 24 mU per ejaculate), zinc (8.0 vs 8.0 µmol per ejaculate), and fructose (62 vs 60 µmol per ejaculate) (all P >0.05). Abnormal sperm concentration (<20 x 10(6)/ml) was observed in significantly fewer of the home-collected samples than the clinic-collected ones (18% [62/342] vs 30% [103/342], P<0.05), and so was abnormal progressive sperm motility (<32%) (64% [219/342] vs 75% [256/342], P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that semen samples collected by masturbation at home has a higher quality than those collected in the clinic. So the location of semen collection should be taken into consideration in infertility investigation.

[Effects of a microfluidic sperm sorter on sperm routine parameters and DNA integrity].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of a microfluidic sperm sorter on the routine parameters and DNA integrity of human sperm. METHODS: We divided 40 semen samples into two aliquots and performed sperm sorting using a self-made polydimethylsiloxane microfluidic sperm sorter and the swim-up method, respectively. Then we evaluated and compared the effects of these two methods on the sperm routine parameters and DNA integrity by computer-assisted sperm analysis and sperm chromatin dispersion test. RESULTS: After processing, sperm motility, normal morphology and tail hypoosmotic swelling rate were significantly improved, while sperm DNA damage remarkably decreased (P < 0.01). The microfluidic sperm sorter achieved a significantly lower rate of sperm DNA damage than the swim-up method ([ 8.4 +/- 5.8 ]% vs [16.4 +/- 9.2] %, P < 0.01), but no statistically significant differences were found in all other parameters between the two methods. CONCLUSION: High-quality sperm with less DNA integrity damage could be obtained in sperm sorting with the microfluidic sperm sorter.