Bilgisayar Destekli Sperma Analiz (CASA) Sistemiyle Yapılan İncelemelerde Spermatozoonların Motilitesini ve Kinematik Değerlerini Etkileyen Faktörler

Spermatozoon motilitesi, spermatozoonların döllenme yeteneği ile iliĢkili en önemli özelliklerden birisi olup canlılıklarının ve yapısal bütünlüğünün bir ifadesidir. Bilgisayar Destekli Sperma Analiz (CASA) sistemleri, farklı türlerde spermatozoon motilitesinin ve kinematik özelliklerin belirlenmesi için yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. CASA sistemleri, bu parametreleri değerlendirmek için daha objektif bir yol sağlasa da, bu ölçümleri önemli sayıda faktör etkileyebilir. Bu faktörler belli baĢlıklar altında sınıflandırılabilir. Bunlar arasında; (1) farklı CASA sistemlerinin varlığı, (2) slayt tipi gibi kullanılan ekipmanlardaki farklılıklar, (3) sperma sulandırıcısı seçimi ve seyreltme oranındaki farklılıklar, (4) ortamın sıcaklığı ve muayene sırasında inkübasyon süresi, (5) muayene sırasında görüntüleme alanlarının seçimi ve sayısı gibi bireysel değerlendirme farklılıkları, (6) sistem ayarlarında kare hızı gibi farklı seçeneklerin olması sayılabilir. Bu farklılıkların etkisini azaltmak için, CASA analizlerinden önce sperma örneklerinin hazırlanmasında belirli prosedürler oluĢturulmalıdır. Ayrıca elde edilen değerlerin kullanımı ve güvenilirliği için kullanılan sistemik ayarların standardize edilmesi gerekmektedir. Bunlara ilaveten, muayeneler sırasındaki ortam koĢulları, kullanılan ekipmanların özellikleri ve sistemin tercih edilen ayarları sonuç raporunda detaylı olarak sunulmalıdır. Öte yandan, spermatozoanın motilite yeteneği ve kinematik parametrelerinin daha etkin değerlendirilmesi ve fertilizasyon ile iliĢkisinin ortaya konması için daha fazla araĢtırmaya ihtiyaç olduğu görülmektedir.

The Factors Affecting Motility and Kinematic Values of Spermatozoa inExaminations by Computer Aided Semen Analysis (CASA) System

Spermatozoon motility is one of the most important characteristics associated with the fertilization ability of spermatozoa and is an expression of their viability and structural integrity. ComputerAssisted Semen Analysis (CASA) systems are commonly used for the determination of spermatozoon motility and the kinematic traits in different species. Although CASA systems provides a more objective way to evaluate them, a significant number of factors can affect these parameters. These factors can be classified under certain headlines. These include; (1) the existence of different CASA systems, (2) variations in used equipment‟s such as the type of slide, (3) the selection of the semen extender and differences in the dilution rate, (4) the temperature of the environment and the incubation time during examination, (5) individual evaluation differences such as selection and number of imaging areas during examination, (6) having different options such as frame rate in systemic settings. The certain procedures should be established in the preparation of semen samples before the CASA analyzes to reduce the impact of these differences. Moreover, the systemic settings used should be standardized in order to use and reliability of the obtained values. In addition, the environmental conditions in the evaluation, the features of used equipment‟s and preferred settings of the system must be presented in detail in final report. On the other hand, it is seen that more research is needed to evaluate the motility ability and kinematic parameters of spermatozoa more effectively and to reveal their relationship with fertilization.

PDF

___

1. Barth AD. Factors affecting fertility with artificial insemination. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1993; 9: 275-289.
2. Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, Karthikeya G, Rengarajan K, Kadirvel G. Objective sperm motion analysis to assess dairy bull fertility using computer-aided system--a review. Reprod Domest Anim 2011; 46: 165-172.
3. Li Y, Kalo D, Zeron Y, Roth Z. Progressive motility - a potential predictive parameter for semen fertilization capacity in bovines. Zygote 2016; 24: 70-82.
4. Loomis P. “What Is progressive motility?”. http://info.selectbreeders.com/blog/bid/152768/What-IsProgressive-Motility / 28.09.2017.
5. Verstegen J, Iguer-Ouada M, Onclin K. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 2002; 57: 149-79.
6. Amann RP, Waberski D. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology 2014; 81: 5-17.
7. Ġnanç ME, Güngör ġ, Ata A. Spermatozoa motilitesinin değerlendirilmesinde bilgisayar destekli sperm analiz sisteminin kullanımı. Turkiye Klin J Reprod Artif Insemin Special Topics 2017; 3: 73-78.
8. Yeste M, Bonet S, Rodríguez-Gil JE, Rivera Del Álamo MM. Evaluation of sperm motility with CASA-Mot: Which factors may influence our measurements? Reprod Fertil Dev 2018; 30: 789-798.
9. Mortimer ST. CASA - practical aspects. J Androl 2000; 515-524.
10. Wijchman JG, De Wolf BTHM, Jager S. Evaluation of a computer aided semen analysis system with sperm tail detection. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 2090-2095.
11. Sönmez M. Reprodüksiyon, Suni Tohumlama ve Androloji Ders Notları. Fırat Üniv Veteriner Fak Dölerme ve Suni Tohumlama AD Elazığ, 2022.
12. Bearden HJ, Fuquay JW, Willard ST. Applied Animal Reproduction. 6th Edition, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hallm, 2004.
13. WHO. Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 6th Edition, 2021.
14. Robayo I, Montenegro V, Valdes C, Cox JF. CASA assessment of kinematic parameters of ram spermatozoa and their relationship to migration efficiency in ruminant cervical mucus. Reprod Dom Anim 2008; 43: 393-399.
15. Contri A, Valorz C, Faustini M, Wegher L, Carluccio A. Effect of semen preparation on casa motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Theriogenology 2010; 74: 424-435.
16. Hafez B, Hafez ESE. Reproduction in Farm Animals, 7th Edition, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Maryland, USA, 2000.
17. Holt W, Watson P, Curry M, Holt C. Reproducibility of computer aided semen analysis: Comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 1277-1282.
18. Castellini C, Dal Bosco A, Ruggeri S, G Collodel G. What is the best frame rate for evaluation of sperm motility in different species by computer-assisted sperm analysis? Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 24-27.
19. Barth AD, Arteaga AA, Brito FC, Palmer W. Use of internal artificial vaginas for breeding soundness evaluation in range bulls: An alternative for electroejaculation allowing observation of sex drive and mating ability. Anim Reprod Sci 2004; 84: 315-325.
20. Marco-Jimenez F, Puchades S, Gadea J, Vicente JS, Viudesde-Castro MP. Effect of semen collection method on pre- and post-thaw Guirra ram spermatozoa. Theriogenology 2005; 64: 1756-1765.
21. Nur Z, Dogan I, Soylu MK, Ak K. Effect of different thawing procedures on the quality of bull semen. Revue Med Vet 2003; 154: 487-490.
22. Senger PL. Handling frozen bovine semen-factors which influence viability and fertility. Theriogenology 1980; 13: 51- 62.
23. Muino R, Rivera MM, Rigau T, Rodriguez-Gil JE, Pena AI. Effect of different thawing rates on post-thaw sperm viability, kinematic parameters and motile sperm subpopulations structure of bull semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2008; 109: 50-64.
24. Iguer-Ouada M, Verstegen JP. Evaluation of the Hamilton Thorn computer-based automated system for dog semen analysis. Theriogenology 2001; 55: 733-749.
25. Sherins RJ. Clinical use and misuse of automated semen analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1991.
26. Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, Kruif de A, Use of the sperm quality analyzer (SQA II-C) for the assessment of dog sperm quality. Reprod Domest Anim 2002; 37: 158-163.
27. Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Maes D, Kruif de A. Effect of technical settings on canine semen motility parameters measured by Hamilton-Thorne analyzer. Theriogenology 2003; 60: 1553-1568.
28. Davis RO, Katz DF. Standardization and comparability of CASA instruments. J Androl 1992; 13: 81-86.
29. Farrell PB, Presicce GA, Brockett CC, Foote RH. Quantification of bull sperm characteristics measured by computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and their relationship to fertility. Theriogenology 1998; 49: 871-879.
30. Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, John Edwin M, Veerapandian C, Post-thaw sperm motion characteristics of different crossbred bull spermatozoa assessed by computer assisted semen analyzer. J Remount Vet Corps 2005; 44: 33-38.
31. Hoflack G, Opsomer G, Rijsselaere T, et al. Comparison of computer assisted sperm motility analysis parameters in semen from Belgian Blue and Holstein-Friesian bulls. Reprod Domest Anim 2007; 42: 153-161.
32. Tuli RK, Schmidt Baulain R, Holtz W. Computer assisted motility assessment of spermatozoa from fresh and frozen-thawed semen of the bull, boar and goat. Theriogenology 1992; 38: 487-490.
33. Hirai M, Cerbito WA, Wijayagunawardane MPB, et al. The effect of viscosity of semen diluent on motility of bull spermatozoa. Theriogenology 1997; 47: 1463-1478.
34. Vantman D, Banks SM, Koukoulis G, Dennison L, Sherins RJ. Assessment of sperm motion characteristics from fertile and infertile men using a fully automated computerassisted semen analyzer. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 156-161.
35. Neuwinger J, Knuth UA, Nieschlag E. Evaluation of the Hamilton-Thorne motility analyser for routine semen analysis in an infertility clinic. Int J Androl 1990; 13: 100- 109.
36. Amann RP. Can the fertility potential of a seminal sample be predicted accurately. J Androl 1989; 10: 89-98.
37. Gacem S, Catalán J, Valverde A, Soler C, Miró J. Optimization of CASA motility analysis of donkey sperm: Optimum frame rate and values of kinematic variables for different counting chamber and fields. Animals 2020; 10: 1-16.
38. Bompart D, Vazquez RF, Gomez R, et al. Combined effects of type and depth of counting chamber, andrate of image frame capture, on bull sperm motility and kinematics. Anim Reprod Sci 2019; 209: E1-9.
39. Karthikeya G. Computer automated motility and morphometric analysis of bull and buck spermatozoa. MVSc Thesis, India Chennai: Tamil Nadu Veterinary Animal Science University, 2003.
40. Palacín I, Vicente-Fiel S, Santolaria P, Yániz JL. Standardization of CASA sperm motility assessment in the ram. Small Rum Res 2013; 112: 128-135.
41. Valverde A, Areán H, Fernández A, et al. Combined effect of type and capture area of counting chamber and diluent on Holstein bull sperm kinematics. Andrologia, 2019; 51: 1-10.
42. Farrell P, Trouern-Trend V, Foote RH, Doualas-Hamilton D. Repeatability of measurements on human, rabbit and bull sperm by computer-assisted sperm analysis when comparing individual fields and means of 12 fields. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 208-210.
43. Anonim. “Fps nedir?” https://www.guvenlikonline.com/ makale/221/fps-nedir.html / 27.12.2021.
44. Owen DH, Katz DF. Sampling factors influencing accuracy of sperm kinematic analysis. J Androl 1993; 14: 210-221.
45. Mortimer ST, Swan MA. Kinematics of capacitating human spermatozoa analysed at 60 Hz. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 873-879.