Advertisement

Treating the Sperm: Selection, Stimulation, and Cryopreservation Techniques

  • Erma Z. Drobnis

Abstract

In evaluation of an infertile couple, clinicians tend to overlook the male partner or delay his workup. This tendency could become more pronounced if immediate application of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) becomes the standard treatment for male-factor infertility. Compelling reasons exist for giving the male partner a thorough evaluation before suggesting appropriate treatment for his infertility.1 In some cases, a man can be treated directly after the minimal expense of a careful history, physical examination, and semen evaluation.2 Other men will benefit from having their sperm treated for use in assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. Of the ART methods available, less invasive and less costly procedures, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), may be the most appropriate therapy.3,4 For patients who have a high likelihood of success with IUI, it is unwarranted to proceed directly to more expensive and risky micromanipulation procedures. To improve the methods of “treating the sperm,” meaningful assays of sperm function are required for appropriate evaluation and comparison of various sperm treatments.

Keywords

Sperm Motility Seminal Plasma Human Sperm Acrosome Reaction Motile Sperm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cummins JM, Jequier AM. Treating male infertility needs more clinical andrology, not less. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1214–1219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schill W-B, Haidl G. Medical treatment of male infertility. In: Insler V, Lunenfeld B, eds. Infertility: Male and Female. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1990: 575–622.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martinez AR, Bernardus RE, Voorhorst FJ, et al. Intrauterine insemination does and domiphene citrate does not improve fecundity in couples with infertility due to male or idiopathic factors: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 847–853.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batzofin JH, Lipshultz LI. Assisted reproductive treatments for oligospermia. In: Seibel MM, ed. Infertility. A Comprehensive Text. Norwalk, CN: Appleton & Lange; 1990: 189–197.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fulgham DL, Alexander NJ. Spermatozoa washing and concentration techniques. In: Keel BA, Webster BW, eds. Handbook of the Laboratory Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990: 193–211.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mortimer D. Practical Laboratory Andrology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byrd W. Sperm preparation and homologous insemination. In: Keye WR, Chang RJ, Rebar RW, Soules MR, eds. Infertility Evaluation and Treatment. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1995: 696–711.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schoysman R, Schoysman-Doboeck A, Van Roosendaal E, et al. Cryopreservation of sperm and its clinical applications. In: Asch RH, Balmaceda JP, Johnston I, eds. Gamete Physiology. Norwell, MA: Serono Symposia, USA; 1990: 197–208.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sherman JK. Cryopreservation of human semen. In: Keel BA, Webster B, eds. CRC Handbook of the Laboratory Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990: 229–259.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harman SM, Blackman MR. Is there an andropause, the analog to menopause, and if so what tissues are affected and how? In: Robaire B, Pryor JL, Trasler J, eds. Handbook of Andrology. American Society of Andrology; 1995: 72–75.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zenzes MT, Reed TE, Nieschlag E. Non-Poisson distribution of sperm from grandfathers in zona-free hamster ova. J Androl 1991; 12: 7175.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenbusch B, Strehler E, Sterzik K. Cytogenetics of human spermatozoa: correlations with sperm morphology and age of fertile men. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 1071–1072.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mladenovic I, Micic S, Papic N, et al. Sperm morphology and motility in different age populations. Arch Androl 1994; 32: 197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bordson BL, Leonardo VS. The appropriate upper age limit for semen donors: a review of the genetic effects of paternal age. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 397–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin RH, Rademaker AW. The effect of age on the frequency of sperm chromosomal abnormalities in normal men. Am J Hum Genet 1987; 41: 484–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin RH, Rademaker A. The relationship between sperm chromosomal abnormalities and sperm morphology in humans. Mutat Res 1988; 207: 159–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Fertility Society. Ethical considerations of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 1994; 62 (suppl 1): 1S - 125S.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Association of Tissue Banks. Reproductive cells and tissues. In: Technical Manual for Tissue Banking. 2nd ed. McLean, VA: American Association of Tissue Banks; 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Fertility Society. Guidelines for therapeutic donor insemination: sperm. Fertil Steril 1993; 59 (suppl 1): 1S - 4S.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schroeder-Jenkins M, Rothmann SA. Causes of donor rejection in a sperm banking program. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 903–906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fugger EF, Maddalena A, Schulman JD. Results of retroactive testing of human semen donors for cystic fibrosis and human immunodeficiency virus by polymerase chain reaction. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1435–1437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Traystman MD, Schulte NA, MacDonald M, et al. Mutation analysis for cystic fibrosis to determine carrier status in 167 sperm donors from the Nebraska genetic semen bank. Hum Mutat 1994; 271: 275.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Findlay I, Cuckle H, Lilford RJ, et al. Screening sperm donors for cystic fibrosis. Br Med J 1995; 310: 1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olds D. Inherited, anatomical, and pathological causes of lowered reproductive efficiency. In: Salisbury GW, VanDemark NL, Lodge JR, eds. Physiology of Reproduction and Artificial Insemination of Cattle. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman; 1978: 611–646.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jainudeen MR, Hafez ESE. Genetics and reproductive failure. In: Hafez ESE, ed. Reproduction in Farm Animals. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1987: 423–435.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vogt PH. Genetic aspects of artificial insemination. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (suppl 1): 128–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leatham JH. Nutritional influences on testicular composition and function in mammals. Handbook Physiol 1975; 5 (section 7): 397–428.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watson PF. The effects of cold shock on sperm cell membranes. In: Morris GJ, Clark A, eds. Effects of Low Temperatures on Biological Membranes. London: Academic Press; 1981: 189–218.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parks JE, Graham JK. Effects of cryopreservation procedures on sperm membranes. Theriogenology 1992; 38: 209–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanger WG, Armitage JO, Schmidt MA. Feasibility of semen cryopreservation in patients with malignant disease. JAMA 1980; 244: 789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanger WG, Olson JH, Sherman JK. Semen cryobanking for men with cancer-criteria change. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 1024–1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chapman RM, Sutcliffe SB, Malpas JS. Male gonadal dysfunction in Hodgkin’s disease: a prospective study. JAMA 1981; 245: 1323–1328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berthelsen JG, Skakkebaek NE. Gonadal function in men with testis cancer. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 68–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hendry WFF, Stedronska J, Jones CR, et al. Semen analysis in testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease: pre-freeze and posttreatment findings and implications for cryopreservation. Br Urol J 1983; 55: 769–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Agarwal A, Tolentino MV, Sidhu RK, et al. Effect of cryopreservation on semen quality in patients with testicular cancer. Urology 1995; 382: 389.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shekarriz M, Tolentino MV Jr, Ayzman I, et al. Cryopreservation and semen quality in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer 1995; 75: 2732–2736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Applegarth LD. The psychological aspects of infertility. In: Keye WR, Chang RJ, Rebar RW, Soules MR, eds. Infertility Evaluation and Treatment. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1995: 25–41.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Foote RH. Extenders and extension of unfrozen semen. In: Salisbury GW, VanDemark NL, Lodge JR, eds. Physiology of Reproduction and Artificial Insemination of Cattle. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman; 1978: 442–493.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Quigley MM, Collins RL, Schover LR. Establishment of an oocyte donor program. Ann NY Acad Sci 1991; 626: 445–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    American Fertility Society. New guidelines for the use of semen donor insemination: 1990. Fertil Steril 1990; 53 (suppl 1): 1S - 13S.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chauhan M, Barratt CLR, Cooke S, et al. Screening for cytomegalovirus antibody in a donor insemination program: difficulties in implementing the American Fertility Society guidelines. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 901–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McGowan MP, Hayes K, Kovacs GT, et al. Prevalence of cytomegalovirus and Herpes simplex virus in human semen. Int J Androl 1983; 6: 331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Dell WT, Almquist JO, Amann RP. Freezing bovine semen. V. Practicability of collecting and freezing large numbers of successive ejaculates. J Dairy Sci 1959; 42: 1209–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seidel GE, Foote RH. Influence of semen collection interval and tactile stimuli on semen quality and sperm output in bulls. J Dairy Sci 1969; 52: 1074–1079.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lampe EH, Masters WH. Problems of male fertility. Fertil Steril 1956; 7: 123–127.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Freund M. Effects of frequency of emission on semen output and an estimate of daily sperm production in man. J Reprod Fertil 1963; 6: 269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Blackwell JM, Zaneveld LJD. Effect of abstinence on sperm acrosin, hypoosmotic swelling, and other semen variables. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 798–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tur-Kaspa I, Maor Y, Levran D, et al. How often should infertile men have intercourse to achieve conception. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 370–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barash A, Lurie S, Weissman A, et al. Comparison of sperm parameters, in vitro fertilization results, and subsequent pregnancy rates using sequential ejaculates, collected two hours apart, from oligoasthenozoospermic men. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 1008–1011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barros C, Jedlicki A, Bize I, et al. Relationship between the length of sperm preincubation and zona penetration in the golden hamster. Gamete Res 1984; 9: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gould JE, Overstreet JW, Hanson FW. Interaction of human spermatozoa with the human zona pellucida and zona-free hamster oocyte following capacitation by exposure to human cervical mucus. Gamete Res 1985; 12: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Munné S, Estop A. The effect of in-vitro ageing on mouse sperm chromosomes. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 703–708.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Estop AM, Munné S, Jost LK, et al. Studies on sperm chromatin structure alterations and cytogenetic damage of mouse sperm following in vitro incubation. Studies on in vitro-incubated mouse sperm. J Androl 1993; 14: 282–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Munné S, Estop AM. Chromosome analysis of human spermatozoa stored in vitro. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 581–586.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rogers BJ, Perreault SD, Bentwood BJ, et al. Variability in the human-hamster, in vitro assay for fertility evaluation. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sofikitis N, Takahashi C, Kadowaki H, et al. The role of the seminal vesicles and coagulating glands in fertilization in the rat. Int J Androl 1992; 15: 54–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Henault MA, Killian GJ, Kavanaugh JF, et al. Effect of accessory sex gland fluid from bulls of differing fertilities on the ability of cauda epi-didymal sperm to penetrate zona-free bovine oocytes. Biol Reprod 1995; 52: 390–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Corteel JM. Viabilité des spermatozoïdes de bouc conservés et congelés avec ou sans leur plasma séminal effet du glucose. Ann Biol Anim Biochem Biophys 1974; 14: 741–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Corteel JM. Effets du plasma séminal sur la survie et la fertilité des spermatozoïdes conserves in vitro. Reprod Nutr Dev 1979; 20: 115127.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Corteel JM, Paquignon M. Preservation of the male gamete (ram, buck, boar). Proc Int Congr Anim Reprod Artif Insem 1984; 10(4):II20–II27.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mann T. The Biochemistry of Semen and of the Male Reproductive Tract. New York: Wiley; 1964: 17–36.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rönkkö S. Immunohistochemical localization of phospholipase A2 in the bovine seminal vesicle and on the surface of the ejaculated spermatozoa. Int J Biochem 1992; 24: 869–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shannon P. Presence of a heat-labile toxic protein in bovine seminal plasma. J Dairy Sci 1965; 48: 1362–1365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Eliasson R, Treichl L. Supravital staining of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 1971; 22: 134–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sexton TJ, Fewlass TA. A new poultry semen extender. Poultry Sci 1978; 57: 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dott HM, Harrison RAP, Foster GCA. The maintenance of motility and the surface properties of epididymal spermatozoa from bull, rabbit and ram in homologous seminal and epididymal plasma. J Reprod Fertil 1979; 55: 113–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Baas JW, Molan PC, Shannon P. Factors in seminal plasma of bulls that affect the viability and motility of spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1983; 68: 275–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    England GCW, Allen WE. Factors affecting the viability of canine spermatozoa. Theriogenology 1992; 37: 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rogers BJ. Mammalian sperm capacitation and fertilization in vitro: a critique of methodology. Gamete Res 1978; 1: 165–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rogers BJ. The sperm penetration assay: its usefulness reevaluated. Fertil Steril 1985; 43: 821–840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mortimer D. Semen analysis and sperm washing techniques. In: Gagnon C, ed. Controls of Sperm Motility: Biological and Clinical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990: 263–284.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yavetz H, Yogev L, Homonnai Z, et al. Prerequisites for successful human sperm cryobanking: sperm quality and prefreezing holding time. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 812–816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Katz DF, Drobnis EZ, Overstreet JW. Factors regulating mammalian sperm migration through the female reproductive tract and oocyte vestments. Gamete Res 1989; 22: 443–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Drobnis EZ, Overstreet JW. Natural history of mammalian spermatozoa in the female reproductive tract. Oxford Rev Reprod Biol 1992; 14: 1–45.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Allison AC, Hartree EF. Lysosomal enzymes in the acrosome and their possible role in fertilization. J Reprod Fertil 1970; 21: 501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Harrison RAP, White IG. Some methods for washing spermatozoa from bull, boar and ram: a comparison using biochemical and other criteria. J Reprod Fertil 1972; 29: 271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mayol RF, Longenecker D. Separation of non-sperm components from seminal preparations and their effect on the analysis of sperm proteins (38744). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1975; 149: 64–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cortadellas N, Durfort M. Fate and composition of cytoplasmic droplet of hamster epididymal spermatozoa. J Morphol 1994; 221: 199–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Garbers DL, Wakabayashi T, Reed PW. Enzyme profile of the cytoplasmic droplet from bovine epididymal spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 1970; 3: 327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gottlieb W, Meizel S. Biochemical studies of metalloendoprotease activity in the spermatozoa of three mammalian species. J Androl 1987; 8: 14–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dowing TW, Garner DL, Ericsson SA, et al. Alteration of sperm metabolism by the addition of excess cytoplasmic droplets. ARTA 1992; 3: 289–293.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Oko R, Hermo L, Chan PTK, et al. The cytoplasmic droplet of rat epididymal spermatozoa contains saccular elements with Golgi characteristics. J Cell Biol 1993; 123: 809–821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dott HM, Dingle JT. Distribution of lysosomal enzymes in the spermatozoa and cytoplasmic droplets of bull and ram. Exp Cell Res 1968; 52: 523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chang MC. A detrimental effect of seminal plasma on the fertilizing capacity of sperm. Nature 1957; 179: 258–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dukelow WR, Chernoff HN, Williams WL. Properties of decapacitation factor and presence in various species. J Reprod Fertil 1965; 14: 393–399.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yanagimachi R. Mechanisms of fertilization in mammals. In: Mastroianni L, Biggers JD, eds. Fertilization and Embryonic Development In Vitro. New York: Plenum Press; 1981: 81–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    O’Rand MG. Modification of the sperm membrane during capacitation. Ann NY Acad Sci 1982; 383: 392–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Oliphant G, Reynolds AB, Thomas TS. Sperm surface components involved in the control of the acrosome reaction. Am J Anat 1985; 174: 269–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Eddy EM, O’Brien DA. Biology of the gamete: maturation, transport, and fertilization. In: Working PK, ed. Toxicology of the Male and Female Reproductive Systems. New York: Hemisphere; 1989: 31–100.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Davis BK, Hungund BJ. Effects of modified membrane vesicles from seminal plasma on the fertilizing capacity of rabbit spermatozoa. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1976; 69: 1004 1010.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Davis BK. Inhibitory effect of synthetic phospholipid vesicles containing cholesterol on the fertilizing capacity of rabbit spermatozoa. Proc Soc Biol Med 1976; 152: 257–261.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Davis BK. Interaction of lipids with the plasma membrane of sperm cells. I. The antifertilization action of cholesterol. Arch Androl 1980; 5: 249–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Fleming AD, Yanagimachi R. Effects of various lipids on the acrosome reaction and fertilizing capacity of guinea pig spermatozoa with special reference to the possible involvement of lysophospholipids in the acrosome reaction. Gamete Res 1981; 4: 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Go KJ, Wolf DP. Albumin-mediated changes in sperm sterol content during capacitation. Biol Reprod 1985; 32: 145–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ehrenwald E, Parks JE, Foote RH. Cholesterol efflux from bovine sperm. Gamete Res 1988; 20: 145–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Cross NL. Multiple effects of seminal plasma on the acrosome reaction of human sperm. Mol Reprod Dev 1993; 35: 316–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Cross NL. Human seminal plasma prevents sperm from becoming acrosomally responsive to the agonist, progesterone: cholesterol is the major inhibitor. Biol Reprod 1996; 54: 138145.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Drobnis EZ, Clisham PR, Brazil CK, et al. Detection of altered acrosomal physiology of cryopreserved human spermatozoa after sperm residence in the female reproductive tract. J Reprod Fertil 1993; 99: 159–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Graham JK. Effect of seminal plasma on the motility of epididymal and ejaculated spermatozoa of the ram and bull during the cryopreservation process. Theriogenology 1994; 41: 1151–1162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Inskeep PB, Magargee SF, Hammerstedt RH. Alterations in motility and metabolism associated with sperm interaction with accessory sex gland fluids. Arch Biochem Biophys 1985; 1: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Peitz B. Effects of seminal vesicle fluid components on sperm motility in the house mouse. J Reprod Fertil 1988; 83: 169–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Hammitt DG, Aschenbrenner DW, Williamson RA. Culture of cytomegalovirus from frozen-thawed semen. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Cohen MS, Collen S, Mardh PA. Mucosal defenses. In: Holmes KK, Mardh PA, Sparling PF, Wiesner PJ, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1984: 173.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Bavister BD. Culture of preimplantation embryos: fact and artifacts. Hum Reprod Update 1995; 1: 91–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Grosheide PM, Van Osand HC, Schalm SW, et al Immunoprophylaxis to limit a hepatitis B epidemic among women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Vaccine 1991; 9: 682–687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Karlström P-O, Hjelm E, Lundkvist O. Comparison of the ability of two sperm preparation techniques to remove microbes. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 386–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Wong PC, Balmaceda JP, Blanco JD, et al. Sperm washing and swim-up technique using antibiotics removes microbes from human semen. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 97–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Foote RH. Buffers and extenders. Tech Conf Artif Insem Reprod 1982; 9: 62–70.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Dunn HO, Larson GL, Willett EL. The effects of freezing bovine spermatozoa in extenders containing antibacterial agents. J Dairy Sci 1953; 728: 732.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Smith YR, Hurd WW, Menge A, et al. Allergic reactions to penicillin during in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1992; 847: 849.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Purdy JM. Methods for fertilization and embryo culture in vitro. In: Edwards RG, Purdy JM, eds. Human Conception In Vitro. London: Academic Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sokoloski JE, Wolf DP. Laboratory details in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. In: Wolf DP, Quigley MM, eds. Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. New York: Plenum Press; 1984: 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ackerman SB, Swanson RJ, Stokes GK, et al. Culture of mouse preimplantation embryos as a quality control assay for human in vitro fertilization. Gamete Res 1984; 9: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Inchiosa MA. Water-soluble extractives of disposable syringes. J Pharm Sci 1965; 54: 1379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Jaeger RJ, Rubin RJ. Plasticizers from plastic devices: extraction, metabolism and accumulation by biological systems. Science 1970; 170: 460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Driscoll D, Douglas-Hamilton DH. Toxic effects of commonly used syringes on equine semen. Theriogenology 1985; 2–7.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Takeda T, Hasler JF. Effect of plastic disposable syringes on development of mouse embryos in culture. Theriogenology 1986; 25: 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    de Ziegler D, Cedars MI, Hamilton F, et al. Factors influencing maintenance of sperm motility during in vitro processing. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 816–820.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Johnson DE, Hodgen GD. Syringe-associated toxicity of culture media on mouse and monkey preembryos. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1991; 8: 198–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Broussard JR, Goodeaux SD, Goodeaux LL, et al. The effects of different types of syringes on equine spermatozoa. Theriogenology 1993; 39: 389–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Quinn P, Warnes GM, Kerin JF, et al. Culture factors in relation to the success of human in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 202–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bavister BD, Andrews JC. A rapid sperm motility bioassay procedure for quality-control testing of water and culture media. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1988; 5: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Boone WR, Shapiro SS. Quality control in the in vitro fertilization laboratory. Theriogenology 1990; 33: 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Findley WE, Gibbons WE. Mouse pre-embryo culture as an evaluation for human pre-embryo requirements. In: Keel BA, Webster BW, eds. CRC Handbook of the Laboratory Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990: 329–344.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Harrison PE, Barratt CLR, Robinson AJ, et al. Detection of white blood cell populations in the ejaculates of fertile men. J Reprod Immunol 1991; 19: 95–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Davis NS, Rothmann SA, Tan M, et al. Effect of catheter composition on sperm quality. J Androl 1993; 14: 66–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Naz RK, Janousek JT, Moody T, et al. Factors influencing murine embryo bioassay: effects of proteins, aging of medium, and surgical glove coatings. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 914.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Althouse GC, Ko JCH, Hopkins SM, et al. Effect of latex and vinyl examination gloves on canine spermatozoal motility. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 199: 227–229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Sheean LA, Goldfarb JJ, Kiwi R, et al. Arrest of embryo development by ultrasound coupling gels. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 568.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Shimonovitz S, Yagel S, Zacut D, et al. Ultrasound transmission gel in the vagina can impair sperm motility. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 482–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Dumoulin JCM, Menheere PPCA, Evers JLH, et al. The effects of endotoxins on gametes and preimplantation embryos cultured in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 730–734.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Randall GW, Gantt PA. Preimplantation murine embryos are more resistant than human embryos to bacterial endotoxins. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1991; 7: 280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Bronson RA, Rogers BJ. Pitfalls of the zona-free hamster egg penetration test: protein source as a major variable. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 851–854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Maurer HR. Towards serum-free, chemically defined media for mammalian cell culture. In: Freshney RI, ed. Animal Cell Culture: a Practical Approach. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992: 15–46.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Arora M, Carver-Ward JA, Jaroudi KA, et al. Is Percoll safe for in vivo use? Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 979–981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Kille JW, Hamner CE. The influence of oviductal fluid on the development of one-cell rabbit embryos in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1973; 35: 415–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Richardson LL, Hamner CE, Oliphant G. Some characteristics of and an inhibitor of embryonic development from rabbit oviductal fluid. Biol Reprod 1980; 22: 553–559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Caro CM, Trounson A. The effect of protein on preimplantation mouse embryo development in vitro. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1984; 1: 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Shirley B, Wortham JWE, Witmyer J, et al. Effects of human serum and plasma on development of mouse embryos in culture media. Fertil Steril 1985; 43: 129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Shirley B, Wortham JWE, Peoples D, et al. Inhibition of embryo development by some maternal sera. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1987; 4: 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Archibong AE, Petters RM, Johnson BH. Development of porcine embryos from one-cell and two-cell stages to blastocysts in culture medium supplemented with porcine oviductal fluid. Biol Reprod 1989; 41: 1076–1083.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Bavister BD. Co-culture for embryo development: is it really necessary? Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1339–1341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Quinn PJ. A lipid-phase separation model of low-temperature damage to biological membranes. Cryobiology 1985; 22: 128–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Hammerstedt RH, Graham JK, Nolan JP. Cryopreservation of mammalian sperm: what we ask them to survive. J Androl 1990; 11: 73–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Sherman JK. Temperature shock in human spermatozoa. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1955; 88: 6–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Sherman JK. Preservation of bull and human spermatozoa by freezing in liquid nitrogen vapour. Nature 1962; 194: 1291–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Sherman JK. Improved methods of preservation of human spermatozoa by freezing and freeze-drying. Fertil Steril 1963; 14: 49–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Freund M, Wiederman J. Factors affecting the dilution, freezing and storage of human semen. J Reprod Fertil 1966; 11: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Graham EF, Crabo BG. Some methods of freezing and evaluating human spermatozoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978; 274–303.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Mahadevan MM, Trounson AO. Effect of cooling, freezing and thawing rates and storage conditions on preservation of human spermatozoa. Andrologia 1984; 16: 52–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Drobnis EZ, Crowe LM, Berger T, et al. Cold shock damage is due to lipid phase transitions in cell membranes: a demonstration using sperm as a model. J Exp Zool 1992; (submitted).Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Quinn Pi, White IG, Cleland KW. Chemical and ultrastructural changes in ram spermatozoa after washing, cold shock and freezing. J Reprod Fertil 1969; 18: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Jones RC, Holt WV. The effects of washing on the ultrastructure and cytochemistry of ram spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1974; 41: 159–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Lopata A, Patullo MJ, Chang A, et al. A method for collecting motile spermatozoa from human semen. Fertil Steril 1976; 27: 677–684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Makler A, Jakobi P. Effect of shaking and centrifugation on human sperm motility. Arch Androl 1981; 7: 21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Padilla AW, Foote RH. Extender and centrifugation effects on the motility patterns of slow-cooled stallion spermatozoa. J Anim Sci 1991; 69: 3308–3313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Jeulin C, Serres C, Jouannet P. The effects of centrifugation, various synthetic media and temperature on the motility and vitality of human spermatozoa. Reprod Nutr Dey 1982; 22: 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Tarlatzis BC, Laufer N, Murillo O, et al. Semen evaluation following preparation for in vitro fertilization of human oocytes. Arch Androl 1986; 17: 215–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Tarlatzia BC, Bontis J, Kolibianakis EM, et al. Evaluation of intrauterine insemination with washed spermatozoa from the husband in the treatment of infertility. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 1241–1246.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Mortimer D. Clinical significance of antisperm antibodies. J Soc Obstet Gynecol Can 1991; 13: 69.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Alvarez JG, Lasso JL, Blasco L, et al. Centrifugation of human spermatozoa induces sublethal damage. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1087–1092.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    White IG. The effect of washing on the motility and metabolism of ram, bull and rabbit spermatozoa. J Exp Biol 1953; 3: 200.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Dott HM, Walton A. Effects of dilution and washing on ram spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1960; 1: 350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Brackett BG. Effects of washing the gametes on fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1969; 20: 127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Salamon S. Deep freezing of boar semen. Aust J Biol Sci 1973; 26: 231–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Iwasaki A, Gagnon C. Formation of reactive oxygen species in spermatozoa of infertile patients. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 409–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Russell LD, Rogers BJ. Improvement in the quality and fertilization potential of a human sperm population using the rise technique. J Androl 1987; 8: 25–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Rana N, Jeyendran RS, Holmgren WJ, et al. Glass wool-filtered spermatozoa and their oocyte penetrating capacity. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer 1989; 6: 280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Pérez-Sanchez F, Cooper TG, Yeung CH, et al. Improvement in quality of cryopreserved human spermatozoa by swim-up before freezing. Int J Androl 1994; 17: 115–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Kerin J, Quinn P. Washed intrauterine insemination in the treatment of oligospermic infertility. Sem Reprod Endocrinol 1987; 5: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Bangham AK, Hancock JL. A new method for counting live and dead bull spermatozoa. Nature 1955: 176: 656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    McGrath J, Hillman N, Nadijcka M. Separation of dead and live mouse spermatozoa. Dey Biol 1977; 61: 114–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Liu DY, Clarke GN, Baker HWG. Inhibition of human sperm-zona pellucida and sperm-oolema binding by antisperm antibodies. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 440–442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Daya S, Gwatkin RBL, Bissessar H. Separation of motile human spermatozoa by means of a glass bead column. Gamete Res 1987; 17: 375–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Casey PJ, Robertson KR, Liu IKM, et al. Column separation of motile spermatozoa from stallion semen. J Androl 1993; 14: 142–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Paulson JD, Polakoski KL. A glass wool column procedure for removing extraneous material from the human ejaculate. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 178–181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Paulson JD, Polakoski KL, Salvatore L. Further characterization of glass wool column filtration of human semen. Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 125–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Sherman JK, Paulson JD, Liu KC. Effect of glass wool filtration on ultrastructure of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 1981; 36: 643–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Jeyendran RS, Van der Ven HH, Perez- Pelaez M, et al. Separation of viable spermatozoa by standardized glass wool column. In: Ratnam SS, Teoh E-S, Ng S-C, eds. In Vitro Fertilization. Carnforth: Parthenon; 1987: 49–53.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Rhemrev J, Jeyendran RS, Vermeiden JPW, et al. Human sperm selection by glass wool filtration and two-layer, discontinuous Percoll gradient centrifugation. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 685–690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Katayama KP, Stehlik E, Roesler M, et al. Treatment of human spermatozoa with an egg yolk medium can enhance the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 1077–1079.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Graham EF, Vasquez IA, Schmehl MKL, et al. An assay of semen quality by use of Sephadex filtration. Proc Int Congr Anim Reprod Artif Insem 1976; 8: 896–899.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Weeda AJ, Cohen J. Effects of purification or split ejaculation of semen and stimulation of spermatozoa by caffeine on their motility and fertilizing ability with the use of zona-free hamster ova. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 817–822.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Drobnis EZ, Zhong CQ, Overstreet JW. Separation of cryopreserved human semen using Sephadex columns, washing, or Percoll gradients. Androl 1991; 12: 201–208.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Singer R, Sagiv M, Allalouf D, et al. Separation of normozoospermic human spermatozoa into subpopulations by selective agglutination with peanut agglutinin. Andrologia 1986; 18: 17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Ravid A, Sagiv M, Bartoov B, et al. Separation of sub-populations of sperm with higher fertility potential from normal and pathological semen by peanut agglutinin. Andrologia 1990; 22: 225–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Okabe M, Matzno S, Nagira M, et al. Collection of acrosome-reacted human sperm using monoclonal antibody-coated paramagnetic beads. Mol Reprod Dev 1992; 32: 389–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Ying X, Okabe M, Mimura T. Selection of acrosome-reacted human spermatozoa and their fusing ability by micro-injection into the perivitelline space of hamster eggs. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1074–1078.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Parinaud J, Vieitez G, Labal B, et al. Selection and micro-injection of acrosome-reacted human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 128–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Ohashi K, Saji F, Wakimoto A, et al. Selection of acrosome-reacted sperm with MH61- immunobeads.J Androl 1994; 15: 78–82.Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Overstreet JW, Yanagimachi R, Katz DF, et al. Penetration of human spermatozoa into the human zona pellucida and the zona-free hamster egg: a study of fertile donors and infertile patients. Fertil Steril 1980; 33: 534–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Wolf DP, Sokoloski JE. Characterization of the sperm penetration bioassay. J Androl 1982; 3: 445–451.Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Makler A, Murillo O, Huszar G, et al. Improved techniques for collecting motile spermatozoa from human semen. Int J Androl 1984; 7: 61–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Berger T, Marrs RP, Moyer DL. Comparison of techniques for selection of motile spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 1985; 43: 268–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Drevius LO. The “sperm-rise” test. J Reprod Fertil 1971; 24: 427–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Cruz RI, Kemmann E, Brandeis VT, et al. A prospective study of intrauterine insemination of processed sperm from men with oligoasthenospermia in superovulated women. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 673–677.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Wikland M, Wik O, Steen Y, et al. A self-migration method for preparation of sperm for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1987; 2: 191–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Tanphaichitr N, Millette CF, Agulnick A, et al. Egg-penetration ability and structural properties of human sperm prepared by Percoll-gradient centrifugation. Gamete Res 1988; 20: 67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Ericsson RJ, Langevin CN, Nishino M. Isolation of fraction rich in human Y sperm. Nature 1973; 246: 421–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Broer KH, Dauber U. A filtering method for cleaning up spermatozoa in cases of asthenospermia. Int J Fertil 1978; 23: 234–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Koper A, Evans PR, Witherow RON, et al. A technique for selecting and concentrating the motile sperm from semen in oligozoospermia. Br J Urol 1979; 51: 587–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Dmowski WP, Gaynor L, Lawrence M, et al. Artificial insemination homologous with Oligospermie semen or albumin columns. Fertil Steril 1979; 31: 58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Perrone D, Testart J. Use of bovine serum albumin column to improve sperm selection for human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1985; 44: 839–841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Wolf DP, Byrd W, Dandekar P, et al. Sperm concentration and the fertilization of human eggs in vitro. Biol Reprod 1984; 31: 837–848.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Sun L-S, Gastaldi C, Peterson EM, et al. Comparison of techniques for the selection of bacte-ria-free sperm preparations. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 659–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Kuzan FB, Hillier SL, Zarutskie PW. Comparison of three wash techniques for the removal of microorganisms from semen. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 836.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Harris SJ, Milligan MP, Masson GM, et al. Improved separation of motile sperm in asthenospermia and its application to artificial insemination homologous (AIH). Fertil Steril 1981; 36: 219–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Huszar G, Willetts M, Corrales M. Hyaluronic acid (Sperm Select) improves retention of sperm motility and velocity in normospermic and Oligospermie specimens. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 1127–1134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Zavos PM, Centola GM. Qualitative and quantitative improvements in human spermatozoa recovered via the swim-up and a new semen filtration method. Infertility 1990; 13: 25–34.Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Centola GM, Zavos PM. Qualitative/quantitative improvements in post-thaw human semen using Spermprep. ARTA 1991; 11: 335–339.Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Zimmerman ER, Robertson KR, Kim H, et al. Semen preparation with the Sperm Select system versus a washing technique. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 269–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Lessley BA, Garner DL. Isolation of motile spermatozoa by density gradient centrifugation in Percoll. Gamete Res 1983; 7: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Dravland JE, Mortimer D. A simple discontinuous Percoll gradient procedure for washing human spermatozoa. IRCS Med Sei 1985; 13: 375–380.Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Forster MS, Smith WD, Lee WI, et al. Selection of human spermatozoa according to their relate motility and their interaction with zona-free hamster eggs. Fertil Steril 1983; 40: 655–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Bolton VN, Braude PR. Preparation of human spermatozoa for in vitro fertilization by isopyc-nic centrifugation on self-generating density gradients. Arch Androl 1984; 13: 167–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Hyne RV, Stojanoff A, Clarke GN, et al. Pregnancy from in vitro fertilization of human eggs after separation of motile spermatozoa by density gradient centrifugation. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 93–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Leventhal A, Margalioth EJ, Schenker JG. Testing the fertilizing ability of motile spermatozoa separated by Percoll in patients with abnormal sperm analysis or sperm penetration. Int J Androl 1987; 32: 302–305.Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Bolton VN, Warren RE, Braude PR. Removal of bacterial contaminants from semen for in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination by the use of buoyant density centrifugation. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 1128–1132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Gorus FK, Pipeleers DG. A rapid method for the fractionation of human spermatozoa according to their progressive motility. Fertil Steril 1981; 35: 662–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Aitken J, Krausz C, Buckingham D. Relationships between biochemical markers for residual sperm cytoplasm, reactive oxygen species generation, and the presence of leukocytes and precursor germ cells in human sperm suspensions. Mol Reprod Dev 1994; 39: 268–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Kaneko S, Sato H, Kobanawa K, et al. Continuous-step density gradient centrifugation for the selective concentration of progressively motile sperm for insemination with husband’s semen. Arch Androl 1987; 19: 75–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    McClure RD, Nunes L, Tom R. Semen manipulation: improved sperm recovery and function with a two-layer Percoll gradient. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 874–877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Ord T, Patrizio P, Marello E, et al. Mini- Percoll: a new method of semen preparation for IVF in severe male factor infertility. Hum Reprod 1990; 5 (suppl 8): 987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  224. 224.
    Ng FLH, Liu DY, Gordon Baker HW. Comparison of Percoll, mini-Percoll and swim-up methods for sperm preparation from abnormal semen samples. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 261–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Guérin JF, Mathieu C, Lornage J, et al, Improvement of survival and fertilizing capacity of human spermatozoa in an IVF programme by selection on discontinuous Percoll gradients. Hum Reprod 1989; 4: 798–804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Junca AM, Chabi N, Plachot M, et al. Amélioration in vitro et fécondance des spermes déficients. Contracept Fertil Sexual 1989; 17: 730–731.Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Arcidiacono A, Walt H, Campana A, et al. The use of Percoll gradients for the preparation of subpopulations of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl 1983; 6: 433–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Gellert-Mortimer ST, Clarke GN, Baker HWG, et al. Evaluation of Nycodenz and Percoll density gradients for the selection of motile human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Fleming AD, Yanagimachi R. Fertile life of acrosome-reacted guinea pig spermatozoa. J Exp Zool 1982; 220: 109–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    Tesarik J. Appropriate timing of the acrosome reaction is a major requirement for the fertilizing spermatozoon, Hum Reprod 1989; 4: 957–961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  231. 231.
    Yanagimachi R. Mammalian Fertilization. In: Knobil E, Neill JD, eds. The Physiology of Reproduction. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1994: 189–317.Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Yanagimachi R. Acceleration of the acrosome reaction and activation of guinea pig spermatozoa by detergents and other reagents. Biol Reprod 1975; 13: 519–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. 233.
    Meizel S, Turner KO. Stimulation of an exocy-totic event, the hamster sperm acrosome reaction by cis-unsaturated fatty acids. FEBS Lett 1983; 161: 315–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. 234.
    Fleming AD, Kosowar NS, Yanagimachi R. Promotion of capacitation of guinea pig spermatozoa by the membrane motility agent, A2C and inhibition by the disulfide-reducing agent DTT. Gamete Res 1982; 5: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. 235.
    Olds-Clarke P. Genetic analysis of sperm function in fertilization. Gamete Res 1988; 20: 241–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Shalgi R, Smith TT, Yanagimachi R. A quantitative comparison of the passage of capacitated and uncapacitated hamster spermatozoa through the uterotubal junction. Biol Reprod 1992; 46: 419–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. 237.
    Lanzafame F, Chapman MG, Guglielmino A, et al. Pharmacological stimulation of sperm motility. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 192–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  238. 238.
    Tash JS. Role of cAMP, calcium, and protein phosphorylation in sperm motility. In: Gagnon C, ed. Controls of Sperm Motility: Biological and Clinical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990: 229–250.Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Fräser LR, Monks NJ. Cyclic nucleotides and mammalian sperm capacitation. J Reprod Fertil 1990; 42 (suppl): 9–21.Google Scholar
  240. 240.
    Kopf GS, Gerton GL. The mammalian sperm acrosome and the acrosome reaction. In: Wassarman PM, ed. Elements of Mammalian Fertilization. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991: 153–203.Google Scholar
  241. 241.
    Garbers DL, Lust WD, First NL, et al. Effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors and cyclic nucleotides on sperm respiration and motility. Biochemistry 1971; 10: 1825–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. 242.
    Garbers DL, First NL, Sullivan JJ, et al. Stimulation and maintenance of ejaculated bovine spermatozoan respiration and motility by caffeine. Biol Reprod 1971; 5: 336–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  243. 243.
    Haesugcharern A, Chulavatnatol M. Stimulation of human spermatozoal motility by caffeine. Fertil Steril 1973; 24: 662–665.Google Scholar
  244. 244.
    Homonnai ZT, Gedalia P, Sofer A, et al. Effect of caffeine on the motility, viability, oxygen consumption and glycolytic rate of ejaculated human normokinetic and hypokinetic spermatozoa. Int J Androl 1976; 21: 163–170.Google Scholar
  245. 245.
    Read MD, Schnieden H. Effect of two methylxanthine derivatives and four prostaglandins on the motility of spermatozoa from volunteers and Oligozoospermie patients. Int J Androl 1978; 1: 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. 246.
    Ruzich JV, Harcharan G, Wein AJ, et al. Objective assessment of the effect of caffeine on sperm motility and velocity. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 891–893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  247. 247.
    Schoenfeld CY, Amelar RD, Dubin L. Stimulation of ejaculated human spermatozoa by caffeine. Fertil Steril 1975; 26: 158–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  248. 248.
    Barkay J, Zuckerman H, Sklan D, et al. Effect of caffeine on increasing the motility of frozen human sperm. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 175–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  249. 249.
    Schill W-B, Pritsch W, Preissler G. Effect of caffeine and kallikrein on cryopreserved human spermatozoa. Int J Fertil 1979; 24: 27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  250. 250.
    Aitken RJ, Best F, Richardson DW, et al. Influence of caffeine on movement characteristics, fertilizing capacity and ability to penetrate cervical mucus of human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1983; 67: 19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. 251.
    Harrison RF, Sheppard BL, Kaliszer M. Observations on the motility, ultrastructure and elemental composition of human spermatozoa incubated with caffeine. Andrologia 1980; 12: 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. 252.
    Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Measurement of intracellular calcium in human spermatozoa. Gamete Res 1982; 15: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. 253.
    Brokaw CJ. Regulation of sperm flagellar motility by calcium and cAMP-dependent phosphorylation. J Cell Biochem 1987; 35: 175–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. 254.
    Babcock DF, Pfeiffer DR. Independent elevation of cytosolic [Ca2+] and pH of mammalian sperm by voltage-dependent and pH-sensitive mechanisms. J Biol Chem 1987; 262: 15041–15047.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  255. 255.
    Thomas P, Meizel S. An influx of extracellular calcium is required for initiation of the human sperm acrosome reaction induced by human follicular fluid. Gamete Res 1988; 20: 397–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. 256.
    Fraser LR, Abeydeera LR, Niwa K. Ca2+-regu-lating mechanisms that modulate bull sperm capacitation and acrosomal exocytosis as determined by chlortetracycline analysis. Mol Reprod Dev 1995; 40: 233–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. 257.
    Gibbons BH, Gibbons IR. Calcium-induced quiescence in reactivated sea urchin sperm. J Cell Biochem 1980; 84: 13–27.Google Scholar
  258. 258.
    Mohri H, Yanagimachi R. Characteristics of motor apparatus in testicular, epididymal and ejaculated spermatozoa. Exp Cell Res 1980; 127: 191–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. 259.
    Peterson RN, Seyler D, Bundman D, et al. The effect of theophylline and dibutyryl cyclic AMP on the uptake of radioactive calcium and phosphate ions by boar and human spermatozoa./Reprod Fertil 1979; 55: 385–390.Google Scholar
  260. 260.
    Lanzafame F, Chapman MG, Guglielmino A, et al. Pharmacological stimulation of sperm motility. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 192–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  261. 261.
    Harrison RF. Insemination of husband’s semen with and without the addition of caffeine. Fertil Steril 1978; 29: 532–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  262. 262.
    Barkay J, Bartoov B, Ben-Ezra S, et al. The influence of in vitro caffeine treatment on human sperm morphology and fertilizing capacity. Fertil Steril 1984; 14: 913–918.Google Scholar
  263. 263.
    Shen MR, Chiang PH, Yang RC, et al. Pentoxifylline stimulates human sperm motility both in vitro and after oral therapy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 31: 711–714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. 264.
    Moohan JM, Winston RML, Lindsay KS. Variability of human sperm response to immediate and prolonged exposure to pentoxifylline. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1696–1700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  265. 265.
    Sikka SC, Hellstrom WJG. The application of pentoxifylline in the stimulation of sperm motion in men undergoing electroejaculation. JAndrol 1991; 12: 165–170.Google Scholar
  266. 266.
    Maramma P, Baraghini GF, Carani C, et al. Further studies on the effects of pentoxifylline on sperm count and sperm motility in patients with idiopathic oligoasthenozoospermia. Andrologia 1985; 17: 612–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. 267.
    Yovich JM, Edirisinghe WR, Cummins JM, et al. Influence of pentoxifylline in severe male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 715–722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  268. 268.
    Tesarik J, Thebault A, Testart J. Effect of pentoxifylline on sperm movement characteristics in normozoospermic and asthenozoo-spermic specimens. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1257–1263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  269. 269.
    Hammitt DG, Martin PA, Callanan T. Correlations between heterospermic fertility and assays of porcine semen quality before and after cryopreservation. Theriogenology 1989; 32: 385–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. 270.
    Kaskar K, Franken DR, Van der Horst G, et al. The effect of pentoxifylline on sperm movement characteristics and zona pellucida binding potential of teratozoospermic men. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 477–481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  271. 271.
    Chiang PH, Tsai EM, Shen MR, et al. Effect of pentoxifylline in the hamster zona-free oocyte, spermatozoa penetration assay and on spermatozoa transmembrane migration motility. Eur Urol 1992; 21: 151–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  272. 272.
    Lambert H, Serpa N, Steinleitner A, et al. Enhanced gamete interaction in the sperm penetration assay after coincubation with pentoxifylline and human follicular fluid. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 1205–1208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  273. 273.
    Carver-Ward JA, Jaroudi KA, Einspenner M, et al. Pentoxifylline potentiates ionophore (A23187) mediated acrosome reaction in human sperm: flow cytometric analysis using CD46 antibody. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 71–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. 274.
    Gearon CM, Mortimer D, Chapman MG, et al. Artificial induction of the acrosome reaction in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. 275.
    Dimitriadou F, Rizos D, Mantzavinos T, et al. The effect of pentoxifylline on sperm motility, oocyte fertilization, embryo quality, and pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 880–886.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  276. 276.
    Gavella M, Lipovac V, Marotti T. Effect of pentoxifylline on superoxide anion production by human sperm. Int J Androl 1991; 14: 320–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. 277.
    Aitken RJ. Andrology and semen preparation for IVF. In: Fishel S, Symonds EM, eds. In Vitro Fertilisation: Past, Present, Future. Oxford: IRL Press; 1986: 89–106.Google Scholar
  278. 278.
    Centola GN, Mattox JH, Bürde S, et al. Assessment of the viability and acrosome status of fresh and frozen-thawed human spermatozoa using single-wavelength fluorescence microscopy. Mol Reprod Dev 1990; 27: 130–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. 279.
    Critser JK, Arneson BW, Aaker DV, et al. Cryopreservation of human spermatozoa. II. Postthaw chronology of motility and of zona-free hamster ova penetration. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 980–984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  280. 280.
    Cohen J, Feiten P, Zeilmaker GH. In vitro cryopreserved human spermatozoa: a comparative study of freezing and thawing procedures. Fertil Steril 1981; 36: 356–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  281. 281.
    Keel BA, Webster BW, Roberts DK. Effects of cryopreservation on the motility characteristics of human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1987; 81: 213–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. 282.
    Mazur P. Freezing of living cells: mechanisms and implications. Am J Physiol 1984; 247:C125- C142.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erma Z. Drobnis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations