Computer assisted sperm analysis - the relationship to bull field fertility, possible errors and their impact on outputs: A review

O SIMONIK; J SICHTAR; A KREJCARKOVA; R RAJMON; L STADNIK; J BERAN; M DOLEZALOVA; Z BINIOVA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i1.46113

Authors

O SIMONIK Ph.D. student, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic
J SICHTAR Post-doc, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic
A KREJCARKOVA Â Ph.D. student,Â Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic
R RAJMON Associated Professor, Head of Department, Veterinary Sciences, CULS in Prague
L STADNIK Associated Professor, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic
J BERAN Scientific worker, Czech University of life Sciences, Department of Animal Husbandry
M DOLEZALOVA Ph.D. student, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic
Z BINIOVA Ph.D. student, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i1.46113

Keywords:

CASA, Fertility, Insemination dose, Sperm motility

Abstract

Sperm motility is one of the indicators most evaluated before and after cryopreservation, regarding quality and fertilizing ability. The present review provides complex information about the possible negative effects on the results of computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and also reflects a possible connection of these results to bull field fertility. Recently, there has been a growing interest in sperm motility assessment by CASA to determine sperm motion more accurately and objectively than by subjective evaluation. CASA systems have been routinely used in most research laboratories and also with increasing tendency in the case of insemination centres. However, objectivity and comparison of CASA results through laboratories can be impacted unfavourably. This is in particular due to the absence of standardization for bull sperm motility evaluation and the presence of drawbacks in the form of human and non-human factors. Investigators have recently turned to the possible association of CASA results with the prediction of bull field fertility. However, the studies suffer from discrepancies, thus a clear relationship has not yet been confirmed. Specific combinations of motility parameters with accurate determination of sperm subpopulations could represent another part in the complex system of providing the ability to predict fertility in vivo. The task of future works should be to establish standardization regarding sperm motility evaluation of specific animals, in addition to the settings and algorithms of CASA systems. Furthermore, predictive value CASA outputs to bull field fertility demand more extensive research aimed at a more precise definition of this relationship.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abaigar T, Holt W V, Harrison R A P and del Barrio G. 1999. Sperm subpopulations in boar (Sus scrofa) and gazelle (Gazella dama mhorr) semen as revealed by pattern analysis of computer-assisted motility assessments. Biology of Reproduction 60 (1): 32–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod60.1.32

Abaigar T, Cano M, Pickard A R and Holt W V. 2001. Use of computer-assisted sperm motility assessment and multivariate pattern analysis to characterize ejaculate quality in Mohor gazelles (Gazella dama mhorr): effects of body weight, electroejaculation technique and short-term semen storage. Reproduction 122 (2): 265–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.0.1220265

Amann R P and Hammerstedt R H. 2002. Detection of differences in fertility - Andrology lab corner. Journal of Andrology 23 (3): 317–25.

Amann R P and Katz D F. 2004. Reflections on CASA after 25 years. Journal of Andrology 25 (3): 317–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02793.x

Amann R P and Waberski D. 2014. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology 81 (1): 5–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.004

Amirat L, Anton M, Tainturier D, Chatagnon G, Battut I and Courtens J L. 2005. Modifications of bull spermatozoa induced by three extenders: Biociphos, low density lipoprotein and Triladyl, before, during and after freezing and thawing. Reproduction 129 (4): 535–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00011

Awad M M. 2011. Effect of some permaeating cryoprotectants on CASA motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Animal Reproductione Science 123: 157–62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.01.003

Beran J, Stádník L, Ducháèek J, Toušová R, Louda F and Štolc L. 2011. Effect of bulls’ breed, age and body condition score on quantitative and qualitative traits of their semen. Acta universitatis agriculturae et siliviculturae mendelianae brunensis 54: 37–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201159060037

Beran J, Stádník L, Bezdíèek J, Louda F, Èítek J andDucháèek J. 2012. Effect of sire and extender on sperm motility and share of live or dead sperm in bulls’ fresh ejaculate and in AI doses after thawing. Archiv Tierzucht 55: 207–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-55-207-2012

Beran J, Šimoník O, Stádník L, Bezdíèek J, Louda F and Ducháèek J. 2013. Effect of bull, diluter and LDL – cholesterol concentration on spermatozoa resistance against cold shock. Acta universitatis agriculturae et siliviculturae mendelianae brunensis 56: 1575–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201361061575

Björndahl L, Mortimer D, Barratt Ch L R, Castilla J A, Menkveld R, Alvarez J G, Haugen T B. 2010. A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology, 348. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511729942

Coetzee K, Bermes N, Krause W and Menkveld R. 2001. Comparison of normal sperm morphology outcomes from two different computer-assisted semen analysis systems. Andrologia 33 (3): 159–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0272.2001.00421.x

Contri A, Valorz C, Faustini M, Wegher L and Carluccio A. 2010. Effect of semen preparation on casa motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Theriogenology 74 (3): 424– 35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.02.025

Douglas-Hamilton D H, Smith N G, Kuster C E, Vermeiden J P W and Althouse G C. 2005. Particle distribution in low-volume capillary-loaded chambers. Journal of Andrology 26 (1): 107– 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2005.tb02879.x

Farrell P B, Presicce G A, Brockett C C and Foote R H. 1998. Quantification of bull sperm characteristics measured by computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and the relationship to fertility. Theriogenology 49 (4): 871–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00036-3

Feitsma H, Broekhuijse M L W J and Gadella B M. 2011. Do CASA Systems Satisfy Consumers Demands? A Critical Analysis. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 46 49–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01867.x

Ferraz M, Morato R, Yeste M, Arcarons N, Pena A I, Tamargo C, Hidalgo C O, Muino R and Mogas T. 2014. Evaluation of sperm subpopulation structure in relation to in vitro spermoocyte interaction of frozen-thawed semen from Holstein bulls. Theriogenology 81 (8): 1067–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.01.033

Fitzpatrick L A, Fordyce G, McGowan M R, Bertram J D, Doogan V J, De Faveri J, Miller R G and Holroyd R G. 2002. Bull selection and use in northern Australia. Part 2. Semen traits. Animal Reproduction Science 71 (1-2): 39–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(02)00024-6

Gillan L, Kroetsch T, Maxwell W M C and Evans G. 2008. Assessment of in vitro sperm characteristics in relation to fertility in dairy bulls. Animal Reproduction Science 103 (3- 4): 201–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2006.12.010

Gloria A, Carluccio A, Contri A, Wegher L, Valorz C and Robbe D. 2013. The effect of the chamber on kinetic results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Andrology 1 (6): 879–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00121.x

Gravance C G, Vishwanath R, Pitt C and Casey P J. 1996. Computer automated morphometric analysis of bull sperm heads. Theriogenology 46 (7): 1205–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(96)00291-9

Gravance C G, Casey M E and Casey P J. 2009. Pre-freeze bull sperm head morphometry related to post-thaw fertility. Animal Reproduction Science 114 (1-3): 81–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.09.014

Hansen C, Vermeiden T, Vermeiden J P W, Simmet C, Day BC and Feitsma H. 2006. Comparison of FACSCount AF system, improved neubauer hemocytometer, Corning 254 photometer, SpermVision, UltiMate and NucleoCounter SP-100 for determination of sperm concentration of boar semen. Theriogenology 66: 2188–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.020

Hoflack G, Opsomer G, Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, de Kruif A and Duchateau L. 2007. Comparison of computerassisted sperm motility analysis parameters in semen from belgian blue and Holstein-Friesian bulls. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 42 (2): 153-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00745.x

Holt W V. 2000. Fundamental aspects of sperm cryobiology: The importance of species and individual differences. Theriogenology 53 (1): 47-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00239-3

Iguer-ouada M and Verstegen J P. 2001. Evaluation of the “Hamilton Thorn computer-based automated system” for dog semen analysis. Theriogenology 55 (3): 733-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00440-X

Januskauskas A, Gil J, Soderquist L, Haard M G M, Haard M C, Johannisson A and Rodriguez-Martinez H. 1999. Effect of cooling rates on post-thaw sperm motility, membrane integrity, capacitation status and fertility of dairy bull semen used for artificial insemination in Sweden. Theriogenology 52 (4): 641- 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00159-4

Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, Edwin M J and Veerapandian C. 2008. Computer automated motion analysis of crossbred bull spermatozoa and its relationship with in vitro fertility in zonafree hamster oocytes. Animal Reproduction Science 104 (1): 9-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.01.002

Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, Karthikeya G, Rengarajan K and Kadirvel G. 2011. Objective Sperm Motion Analysis to Assess Dairy Bull Fertility Using Computer-Aided System - A Review. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 46 (1): 165-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2010.01603.x

Katila T. 2001. In vitro evaluation of frozen-thawed stallion semen: A review. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 42 (2): 199. Kuster C. 2005. Sperm concentration determination between hemacytometric and CASA systems: Why they can be different. Theriogenology 64 (3): 614-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.05.047

Lenz R W, Kjelland M E, VonderHaar K, Swannack T M and Moreno J F. 2011. A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer. Journal of Animal Science 89 (2): 383-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3056

Lu J C, Huang Y F and Lu N Q. 2014. Computer-aided sperm analysis: past, present and future. Andrologia 46 (4): 329-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/and.12093

Maes D, Rijsselaere T, Vyt P, Sokolowska A, Deley W and Van Soom A. 2010. Comparison of five different methods to assess the concentration of boar semen. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift 79 (1): 42-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21825/vdt.87427

Marquez B and Suarez S S. 2007. Bovine sperm hyperactivation is promoted by alkaline-stimulated Ca2+ influx. Biology of Reproduction 76 (4): 660-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.106.055038

Martinez-Pastor F, Jorge Tizado E, Julian Garde J, Anel L and de Paz P. 2011. Statistical Series: Opportunities and challenges of sperm motility subpopulation analysis. Theriogenology 75 (5): 783-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.11.034

Michos I A, Basioura A G, Boscos C M and Tsakmakidis I A. 2013. Proper use and impact of ‘Computer Assisted Semen Analysis’ technique on semen evaluation of farm animals. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society 64 (4): 267-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.15506

Mortimer S T. 1997. A critical review of the physiological importance and analysis of sperm movement in mammals. Human Reproduction Update 3 (5): 403-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/3.5.403

Mortimer S T. 2000. CASA - Practical aspects. Journal of Andrology 21 (4): 515-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2000.tb02116.x

Moussa M, Martinet V, Trimeche A, Tainturier D and Anton M. 2002. Low density lipoproteins extracted from hen egg yolk by an easy method: cryoprotective effect on frozen-thawed bull semen. Theriogenology 57 (6): 1695-706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)00682-9

Muino R, Tamargo C, Hidalgo C O and Pena A I. 2008. Identification of sperm subpopulations with defined motility characteristics in ejaculates from Holstein bulls: Effects of cryopreservation and between-bull variation. Animal Reproduction Science 109 (1-4): 27-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.10.007

Muino R, Pena A I, Rodriguez A, Tamargo C and Hidalgo C O. 2009. Effects of cryopreservation on the motile sperm subpopulations in semen from Asturiana de los Valles bulls. Theriogenology 72 (6): 860-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.06.009

Nunez-Martinez I, Moran J M and Pena F J. 2006. A three-step statistical procedure to identify sperm kinematic subpopulations in canine ejaculates: Changes after cryopreservation. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41 (5): 408-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00685.x

Oliveira L Z, de Arruda R P, de Andrade A F C, Celeghini E C C, dos Santos R M, Beletti M E, Peres R F G, Oliveira C S and de Lima V. 2012. Assessment of field fertility and several in vitro sperm characteristics following the use of different Angus sires in a timed-AI program with suckled Nelore cows. Livestock Science 146 (1): 38-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.018

Oliveira L Z, de Arruda R P, de Andrade A F C, Celeghini E C C, Reeb P D, Martins J P N, dos Santos R M, Beletti M E, Peres R F G, Monteiro F M and de Lima V. 2013. Assessment of in vitro sperm characteristics and their importance in the prediction of conception rate in a bovine timed-AI program. Animal Reproduction Science 137 (3-4): 145-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.01.010

Puglisi R, Pozzi A, Foglio L, Spano M, Eleuteri P, Grollino M G, Bongioni G and Galli A. 2012. The usefulness of combining traditional sperm assessments with in vitro heterospermic insemination to identify bulls of low fertility as estimated in vivo. Animal Reproduction Science 132 (1-2): 17-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.04.006

Quintero-Moreno A, Miro J, Rigau A T and Rodriguez-Gil J E. 2003. Identification of sperm subpopulations with specific motility characteristics in stallion ejaculates. Theriogenology 59 (9): 1973-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01297-9

Quintero-Moreno A, Rigau T and Rodriguez-Gil J E. 2004. Regression analyses and motile sperm subpopulation structure study as improving tools in boar semen quality analysis. Theriogenology 61 (4): 673-90. Quintero-Moreno A, Rigau T and Rodriguez-Gil J E. 2007. Multivariate cluster analysis regression procedures as tools to identify motile sperm subpopulations in rabbit semen and to predict semen fertility and litter size. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 42 (3): 312-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00785.x

Rehak D, Volek J, Barton L, Vodkova Z, Kubesova M and Rajmon R. 2012. Relationships among milk yield, body weight, and reproduction in Holstein and Czech Fleckvieh cows. Czech Journal of Animal Science 57 (6): 274-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/5962-CJAS

Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D and de Kruif A. 2003. Effect of technical settings on canine semen motility parameters measured by the Hamilton-Thorne analyzer. Theriogenology 60 (8): 1553-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00171-7

Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D and Nizanski W. 2012. Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis in Dogs and Cats: An Update after 20 Years. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 47 204-07. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12057

Rodriguez-Martinez H. 2006. Can we increase the estimative value of semen assessment? Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41 2-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00764.x

Shojaei H, Kroetsch T, Wilde R, Blondin P, Kastelic J P and Thundathil J C. 2012. Moribund sperm in frozen-thawed semen, and sperm motion end points post-thaw and post-swimup, are related to fertility in Holstein AI bulls. Theriogenology 77 (5): 940-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.09.026

Suarez S S. 2008a. Control of hyperactivation in sperm. Human Reproduction Update 14 (6): 647-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn029

Suarez S S. 2008b. Regulation of sperm storage and movement in the mammalian oviduct. International Journal of Developmental Biology 52 (5-6): 455–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.072527ss

Sundararaman M N, Kalatharan J and Thilak Pon Jawahar K. 2012. Computer asissted semen analysis for quantification of motion characteristics of bull sperm during cryopreservation cycle. Veterinary World 5: 723–726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2012.723-726

Simonik O, Stadnik L, Rajmon R, Beran J, Sichtar J and Duchacek J. 2013. Influence of LDL addition on cryoprotective properties of bovine semen extenders. Proceedings of 4th International Agronomic Symposium “Agrosym 2013”. 3–6 October 2013. Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Verstegen J, Iguer-Ouada M and Onclin K. 2002. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57 (1): 149–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00664-1

Vincent P, Underwood S L, Dolbec C, Bouchard N, Kroetsch T and Blondin P. 2012. Bovine semen quality control in artificial insemination centres. Animal Reproduction 9: 153–165.

Wall R J and Foote R H. 1999. Fertility of bull sperm frozen and stored in clarified egg yolk-Tris-glycerol extender. Journal of Dairy Science 82 (4): 817–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75301-4

WHO. 2010. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. 5th edition, p 138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Zhang B R, Larsson B, Lundeheim N and Rodriguez-Martinez H. 1998. Sperm characteristics and zona pellucida binding in relation to field fertility of frozen-thawed semen from dairy AI bulls. International Journal of Andrology 21 (4): 207–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2605.1998.00114.x