PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
In laboratory mice, sperm quality is usually assessed in spermatozoa collected from the cauda epididymidis of freshly sacrificed males. Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) is a non-terminal alternative that would allow repeated sperm collection for sperm quality assessment in living males. To test whether PESA is a suitable method to assess sperm quality, we compared sperm traits between samples collected by PESA vs the commonly applied terminal cauda epididymidis dissection. The collected sperm samples were analyzed using computer-assisted sperm analysis and various parameters, including sperm motility, swimming velocity and morphology, were determined. We were able to retrieve motile sperm from all mice using PESA and the terminal cauda epididymidis dissection. Based on computer-assisted sperm analysis, however, sperm motility and swimming velocity were significantly lower after PESA compared to samples obtained by cauda epididymidis dissection. In addition, we found significantly more morphological abnormalities in PESA samples, probably induced as a side effect of the sampling technique. Although sperm samples collected by PESA are successfully used for in vitro fertilization, we cannot recommend PESA as a suitable method to assess sperm quality in mice, since the procedure seems to impair various sperm traits.
In mice, sperm quality is usually assessed in sperm collected from the epididymis (organ where ripe sperm is stored) of euthanized males. However, there is one non-terminal and minimal invasive alternative to collect sperm, called percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA), which allows repeated sample collections from the same individual. Given that individual sperm quality is variable and can change according to various factors, PESA could allow to track sperm quality over time and would be highly appreciated in different research fields. Here, we tested the suitability of PESA to determine sperm quality by comparing sperm samples collected by PESA vs the commonly applied terminal epididymis dissection. We used computer-assisted sperm analysis to determine various sperm quality traits. Surprisingly, we found that sperm collected by PESA showed significantly reduced motility, swimming velocity and more morphological abnormalities compared to sperm samples collected by epididymis dissection. Thus, we cannot recommend PESA as a suitable method to determine sperm quality traits as the procedure itself seems to affect collected sperm cells.
In mice, sperm quality is usually assessed in sperm collected from the epididymis (organ where ripe sperm is stored) of euthanized males. However, there is one non-terminal and minimal invasive alternative to collect sperm, called percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA), which allows repeated sample collections from the same individual. Given that individual sperm quality is variable and can change according to various factors, PESA could allow to track sperm quality over time and would be highly appreciated in different research fields. Here, we tested the suitability of PESA to determine sperm quality by comparing sperm samples collected by PESA vs the commonly applied terminal epididymis dissection. We used computer-assisted sperm analysis to determine various sperm quality traits. Surprisingly, we found that sperm collected by PESA showed significantly reduced motility, swimming velocity and more morphological abnormalities compared to sperm samples collected by epididymis dissection. Thus, we cannot recommend PESA as a suitable method to determine sperm quality traits as the procedure itself seems to affect collected sperm cells.
摘要：
在实验室中，通常在从刚处死的雄性附睾尾收集的精子中评估精子质量。经皮附睾精子抽吸术（PESA）是一种非终末替代方法，可重复收集精子以评估在世男性的精子质量。为了测试PESA是否是评估精子质量的合适方法，我们比较了PESA与常用的末端附睾尾管解剖收集的精子特征。收集的精子样本使用计算机辅助精子分析和各种参数进行分析，包括精子的运动性,确定游泳速度和形态。我们能够使用PESA和附睾尾囊解剖从所有小鼠中检索活动精子。基于计算机辅助精子分析，然而,与通过附睾尾管解剖获得的样品相比，PESA后的精子活力和游泳速度显着降低。此外,我们在PESA样本中发现了明显更多的形态畸形，可能是采样技术的副作用。尽管PESA收集的精子样本已成功用于体外受精，我们不能推荐PESA作为评估小鼠精子质量的合适方法，因为该程序似乎损害了各种精子特征。
