Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2023; 41(06): 273-278
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777756
Review Article

Only the Best of the Bunch—Sperm Preparation Is Not Just about Numbers

Meurig T. Gallagher 
1   Centre for Human Reproductive Science, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Women's Fertility Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
2   Centre for Systems Modelling and Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
,
Ingrida Krasauskaite
1   Centre for Human Reproductive Science, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Women's Fertility Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
,
Jackson C. Kirkman-Brown 
1   Centre for Human Reproductive Science, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Women's Fertility Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In this Seminar, we present an overview of the current and emerging methods and technologies for optimizing the man and the sperm sample for fertility treatment. We argue that sperms are the secret to success, and that there are many avenues for improving both treatment and basic understanding of their role in outcomes. These outcomes encompass not just whether treatment is successful or not, but the wider intergenerational health of the offspring. We discuss outstanding challenges and opportunities of new technologies such as microfluidics and artificial intelligence, including potential pitfalls and advantages. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the importance of sperm in fertility treatment and suggests future directions for research and innovation.

Keywords

male fertility - reproduction - sperm - medically assisted reproduction


Publication History

Article published online:
19 December 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Eisenberg ML, Barratt CLR, De Jonge CJ. Don't forget the father. Fertil Steril 2022; 117 (05) 936-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus?. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (12) 2703-2707
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marques M, Rodrigues P, Aibar J, Carvalho MJ, Plancha CE. Time to live birth: towards a common agreement. J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40 (05) 997-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 West R, Coomarasamy A, Frew L. et al. Sperm selection with hyaluronic acid improved live birth outcomes among older couples and was connected to sperm DNA quality, potentially affecting all treatment outcomes. Hum Reprod 2022; 37 (06) 1106-1125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kirkman-Brown JC, Martins MV. ‘Genes versus children’: if the goal is parenthood, are we using the optimal approach?. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (01) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Von Woon E, Greer O, Shah N, Nikolaou D, Johnson M, Male V. Number and function of uterine natural killer cells in recurrent miscarriage and implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2022; 28 (04) 548-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Baldini D, Ferri D, Baldini GM. et al. Sperm selection for ICSI: do we have a winner?. Cells 2021; 10 (12) 3566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bjorndahl L. ed. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 6th ed.. World Health Organization; 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Björndahl L, Brown JK. The sixth edition of the WHO manual on semen examination: ensuring quality and standardization in basic examination of human ejaculates. Fertil Steril 2022; 117 (02) 246-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nassan FL, Chavarro JE, Tanrikut C. Diet and men's fertility: does diet affect sperm quality?. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (04) 570-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Salas-Huetos A, James ER, Aston KI, Jenkins TG, Carrell DT. Diet and sperm quality: nutrients, foods and dietary patterns. Reprod Biol 2019; 19 (03) 219-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shi X, Chan CPS, Waters T, Chi L, Chan DYL, Li T-C. Lifestyle and demographic factors associated with human semen quality and sperm function. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2018; 64 (05) 358-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Horta F, Vollenhoven B, Healey M, Busija L, Catt S, Temple-Smith P. Male ageing is negatively associated with the chance of live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles for idiopathic infertility. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (12) 2523-2532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 du Fossé NA, van der Hoorn MP, van Lith JMM, le Cessie S, Lashley EELO. Advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of spontaneous miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2020; 26 (05) 650-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Baldi E, Gallagher MT, Krasnyak S. et al. Extended semen examinations in the sixth edition of the World Health Organization manual on semen analysis: contributing to the understanding of the function of the male reproductive system. Fertil Steril 2022; 117 (02) 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lopes S, Sun J-G, Jurisicova A, Meriano J, Casper RF. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation is increased in poor-quality semen samples and correlates with failed fertilization in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (03) 528-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sergerie M, Laforest G, Bujan L, Bissonnette F, Bleau G. Sperm DNA fragmentation: threshold value in male fertility. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (12) 3446-3451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barratt CLR, Björndahl L, De Jonge CJ. et al. The diagnosis of male infertility: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance-challenges and future research opportunities. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23 (06) 660-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mortimer ST, van der Horst G, Mortimer D. The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J Androl 2015; 17 (04) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 van der Horst G. Processes and Data Management of Computer-Aided Sperm Analysis in Human and Animal Spermatozoa. Springer; 2021: 199-210
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Cupples G, Gallagher MT, Smith DJ, Kirkman-Brown JC. Heads and Tails: Requirements for Informative and Robust Computational Measures of Sperm Motility. Cham: Springer; 2021: 135-150
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Moskovtsev SI, Lecker I, Mullen JBM. et al. Cause-specific treatment in patients with high sperm DNA damage resulted in significant DNA improvement. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2009; 55 (02) 109-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ribas-Maynou J, García-Peiró A, Fernández-Encinas A. et al. Comprehensive analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation by five different assays: TUNEL assay, SCSA, SCD test and alkaline and neutral Comet assay. Andrology 2013; 1 (05) 715-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Robinson L, Gallos ID, Conner SJ. et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on miscarriage rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (10) 2908-2917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Osman A, Alsomait H, Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on live birth rate after IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30 (02) 120-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cissen M, Wely MV, Scholten I. et al. Measuring sperm DNA fragmentation and clinical outcomes of medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11 (11) e0165125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Simon L, Zini A, Dyachenko A, Ciampi A, Carrell DT. A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of sperm DNA damage on in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Asian J Androl 2017; 19 (01) 80-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Miller D, Pavitt S, Sharma V. et al. Physiological, hyaluronan-selected intracytoplasmic sperm injection for infertility treatment (HABSelect): a parallel, two-group, randomised trial. Lancet 2019; 393 (10170): 416-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mangum CL, Patel DP, Jafek AR. et al. Towards a better testicular sperm extraction: novel sperm sorting technologies for non-motile sperm extracted by microdissection TESE. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9 (Suppl. 02) S206-S214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pons I, Cercas R, Villas C, Braña C, Fernández-Shaw S. One abstinence day decreases sperm DNA fragmentation in 90% of selected patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30 (09) 1211-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 De Jonge C, LaFromboise M, Bosmans E, Ombelet W, Cox A, Nijs M. Influence of the abstinence period on human sperm quality. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (01) 57-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aitken RJ, Bakos HW. Should we be measuring DNA damage in human spermatozoa? New light on an old question. Hum Reprod 2021; 36 (05) 1175-1185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dahan MH, Mills G, Khoudja R, Gagnon A, Tan G, Tan SL. Three hour abstinence as a treatment for high sperm DNA fragmentation: a prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38 (01) 227-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hammarberg K, Setter T, Norman RJ, Holden CA, Michelmore J, Johnson L. Knowledge about factors that influence fertility among Australians of reproductive age: a population-based survey. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (02) 502-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hammarberg K, Collins V, Holden C, Young K, McLachlan R. Men's knowledge, attitudes and behaviours relating to fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23 (04) 458-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vine MF, Tse CK, Hu P, Truong KY. Cigarette smoking and semen quality. Fertil Steril 1996; 65 (04) 835-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bundhun PK, Janoo G, Bhurtu A. et al. Tobacco smoking and semen quality in infertile males: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2019; 19 (01) 36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kumar SB, Chawla B, Bisht S, Yadav RK, Dada R. Tobacco use increases oxidative DNA damage in sperm-possible etiology of childhood cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16 (16) 6967-6972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Salas-Huetos A, Babio N, Carrell DT, Bulló M, Salas-Salvadó J. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet is positively associated with sperm motility: a cross-sectional analysis. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 3389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Salas-Huetos A, Arvizu M, Mínguez-Alarcón L. et al; EARTH Study Team. Women's and men's intake of omega-3 fatty acids and their food sources and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 227 (02) 246.e1-246.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Salas-Huetos A, James ER, Salas-Salvadó J. et al. Sperm DNA methylation changes after short-term nut supplementation in healthy men consuming a Western-style diet. Andrology 2021; 9 (01) 260-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Newman-Sanders A, Kirkman-Brown JC, Gallagher MT. Gym lifestyle factors and male reproductive health: a study into young adult usage and perceptions. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 48 (01) 103623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ketheeswaran S, Haahr T, Povlsen B. et al. Protein supplementation intake for bodybuilding and resistance training may impact sperm quality of subfertile men undergoing fertility treatment: a pilot study. Asian J Androl 2019; 21 (02) 208-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 de La Rochebrochard E, de Mouzon J, Thépot F, Thonneau P. French National IVF Registry (FIVNAT) Association. Fathers over 40 and increased failure to conceive: the lessons of in vitro fertilization in France. Fertil Steril 2006; 85 (05) 1420-1424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 D'Onofrio BM, Rickert ME, Frans E. et al. Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry 2014; 71 (04) 432-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Frans EM, Sandin S, Reichenberg A, Lichtenstein P, Långström N, Hultman CM. Advancing paternal age and bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008; 65 (09) 1034-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Krug A, Wöhr M, Seffer D. et al. Advanced paternal age as a risk factor for neurodevelopmental disorders: a translational study. Mol Autism 2020; 11 (01) 54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Oldereid NB, Wennerholm U-B, Pinborg A. et al. The effect of paternal factors on perinatal and paediatric outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2018; 24 (03) 320-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Curley JP, Mashoodh R, Champagne FA. Epigenetics and the origins of paternal effects. Horm Behav 2011; 59 (03) 306-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Eisenberg DTA. Paternal age at conception effects on offspring telomere length across species - What explains the variability?. PLoS Genet 2019; 15 (02) e1007946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Eisenberg DTA, Kuzawa CW. The paternal age at conception effect on offspring telomere length: mechanistic, comparative and adaptive perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2018; 373 (1741): 20160442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Priskorn L, Jensen TK, Lindahl-Jacobsen R, Skakkebæk NE, Bostofte E, Eisenberg ML. Parental age at delivery and a man's semen quality. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (05) 1097-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gallagher MT, Smith DJ, Kirkman-Brown JC. CASA: tracking the past and plotting the future. Reprod Fertil Dev 2018; 30 (06) 867-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Youn JS, Cha SH, Park CW. et al. Predictive value of sperm motility characteristics assessed by computer-assisted sperm analysis in intrauterine insemination with superovulation in couples with unexplained infertility. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2011; 38 (01) 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Gallagher MT, Cupples G, Ooi EH, Kirkman-Brown JC, Smith DJ. Rapid sperm capture: high-throughput flagellar waveform analysis. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (07) 1173-1185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Khodamoradi M, Rafizadeh Tafti S, Mousavi Shaegh SA, Aflatoonian B, Azimzadeh M, Khashayar P. Recent microfluidic innovations for sperm sorting. Chemosensors (Basel) 2021; 9 (06) 126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Nikshad A, Aghlmandi A, Safaralizadeh R. et al. Advances of microfluidic technology in reproductive biology. Life Sci 2021; 265: 118767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Samuel R, Feng H, Jafek A, Despain D, Jenkins T, Gale B. Microfluidic-based sperm sorting & analysis for treatment of male infertility. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7 (Suppl. 03) S336-S347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Nosrati R, Graham PJ, Zhang B. et al. Microfluidics for sperm analysis and selection. Nat Rev Urol 2017; 14 (12) 707-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Suarez SS, Wu M. Microfluidic devices for the study of sperm migration. Mol Hum Reprod 2017; 23 (04) 227-234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Knowlton SM, Sadasivam M, Tasoglu S. Microfluidics for sperm research. Trends Biotechnol 2015; 33 (04) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Mortimer D. Sperm preparation methods. J Androl 2000; 21 (03) 357-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 MacLeod J, Gold RZ. The male factor in fertility and infertility. IX. Semen quality in relation to accidents of pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1957; 8 (01) 36-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Young S, Schiffer C, Wagner A. et al. Unexplained infertility is frequently caused by defective CatSper function preventing sperm from penetrating the egg coat. medRxiv 2023:2023.03.23.23286813
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Xie P, Kocur OM, Cheung S. et al. Sperm centriolar factors and genetic defects that can predict pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2023; 120 (04) 720-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Cohen J, McNaughton DC. Spermatozoa: the probable selection of a small population by the genital tract of the female rabbit. J Reprod Fertil 1974; 39 (02) 297-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Kirkman-Brown JC, Smith DJ. Sperm motility: is viscosity fundamental to progress?. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17 (08) 539-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Sabet S, Najafi MH, Tavalaee M, Sadeghi N, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Single-blind clinical trial: sperm selection based on capacity to pass through cumulus oophorus column improves ICSI outcomes. Andrology 2021; 9 (05) 1560-1570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Wang C, Feng G, Shu J. et al. Cumulus oophorus complexes favor physiologic selection of spermatozoa for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2018; 109 (05) 823-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Kocur OM, Xie P, Cheung S. et al. Can a sperm selection technique improve embryo ploidy?. Andrology 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Swain J, VerMilyea MT, Meseguer M, Ezcurra D. Fertility AI Forum Group. AI in the treatment of fertility: key considerations. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020; 37 (11) 2817-2824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Riegler MA, Stensen MH, Witczak O. et al. Artificial intelligence in the fertility clinic: status, pitfalls and possibilities. Hum Reprod 2021; 36 (09) 2429-2442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z. Artificial intelligence in human in vitro fertilization and embryology. Fertil Steril 2020; 114 (05) 914-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Liang W, Tadesse GA, Ho D. et al. Advances, challenges and opportunities in creating data for trustworthy AI. Nat Mach Intell 2022; 4 (08) 669-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Cherouveim P, Velmahos C, Bormann CL. Artificial intelligence for sperm selection - a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2023; 120 (01) 24-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Lee R, Witherspoon L, Robinson M. et al. Automated rare sperm identification from low-magnification microscopy images of dissociated microsurgical testicular sperm extraction samples using deep learning. Fertil Steril 2022; 118 (01) 90-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Mendizabal-Ruiz G, Chavez-Badiola A, Aguilar Figueroa I. et al. Computer software (SiD) assisted real-time single sperm selection associated with fertilization and blastocyst formation. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 45 (04) 703-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Goodson SG, White S, Stevans AM. et al. CASAnova: a multiclass support vector machine model for the classification of human sperm motility patterns. Biol Reprod 2017; 97 (05) 698-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Gumerova E, De Jonge CJ, Barratt CL. Research funding for male reproductive health and infertility in the UK and USA [2016–2019]. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2023; 26 (03) 439-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Kanakasabapathy MK, Sadasivam M, Singh A. et al. An automated smartphone-based diagnostic assay for point-of-care semen analysis. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9 (382) eaai7863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 De Angelis A, Managò S, Ferrara M, Napolitano M, Coppola G, De Luca A. Combined Raman spectroscopy and digital holographic microscopy for sperm cell quality analysis. Journal of Spectroscopy 2017;2017;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Huang Z, Chen G, Chen X. et al. Rapid and label-free identification of normal spermatozoa based on image analysis and micro-Raman spectroscopy. J Biophotonics 2014; 7 (09) 671-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Huser T, Orme CA, Hollars CW, Corzett MH, Balhorn R. Raman Spectroscopy of DNA Packaging in Individual Human Sperm Cells Distinguishes Normal from Abnormal Cells. Wiley Online Library; 2009: 322-332
    Google Scholar