CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

Assessing human sperm morphology: top models, underdogs or biometrics?

Open access
Auger, Jacques·2010·Asian Journal of Andrology
DOI 10.1038/aja.2009.8PMC PMC3739679
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The assessment of the percentage of spermatozoa having an 'ideal' morphology using so-called strict method is the method recommended in the latest edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory manual for semen analysis. This recommendation is a result of the statistical association between 'ideal' sperm morphology and fertility, and of the current general belief that sperm morphology assessment should be used primarily as a fertility tool. The notion of an 'ideal' sperm morphology has persisted despite the very low percentage of such spermatozoa in the semen of fertile men, a subject of intense controversy. The detailed categorization of each abnormal spermatozoon has thus, for a long time, been considered optional and partially redundant, an idea which is reflected in the earlier editions of the WHO manual. However, several recent studies have shown the importance of carefully assessing abnormal sperm morphology for use in the diagnosis of infertility, to determine fertility prognosis, and for basic or public health studies. One approach, which combines videomicroscopy and computer vision, and is the only approach able to assess the continuum of sperm biometrics, has been used successfully in several recent clinical, basic and toxicology studies. In summary, the visual assessment of detailed sperm morphology-including the categorization of anomalies allowing arithmetically derived indices of teratozoospermia-and the more modern computer-based approaches, although often considered to be redundant, are in fact complementary. The choice of the most appropriate method depends on the field of investigation (clinical, research, toxicology) and the problem being addressed. Each approach has advantages as well as certain limitations, which will be discussed briefly herein.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/aja.2009.8

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other genetic causes of sperm morphological abnormalities include mutations of SUN5, SPATA20, ACTL7A, and CCIN, which result in pinhead spermatozoa, acephalic spermatozoa syndrome, bubble-shaped acrosome, and severe head malformations, respectively.

    “Other genetic causes of sperm morphological abnormalities include mutations of the SUN5, SPATA20, ACTL7A, and CCIN genes which result in pinhead spermatozoa and acephalic spermatozoa syndrome, bubble-shaped acrosome and severe head malformations, respectively (37,48,49,50).”

    From Isolated teratozoospermia: revisiting its relevance in male infertility: a narrative review (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    Section 4 says several sperm abnormalities have a precise genetic origin, and the References list a study of acephalic spermatozoa described as a syndrome of genetic origin. But our copy does not identify SUN5, SPATA20, ACTL7A, or CCIN or link their mutations to the specific abnormalities claimed. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Jeulin C, Soumah A, Jouannet P. Morphological factors influencing the penetration of human sperm into cervical mucus in vitro. Int J Androl 1985; 8: 215-23.
  2. Liu DY, Baker HW. Sperm nuclear chromatin normality: relationship with sperm morphology, sperm-zona pellucida binding, and fertilization rates in vitro. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 1178-84.
  3. Katz DF, Drobnis EZ, Overstreet JW. Factors regulating mam- malian sperm migration through the female reproductive tract and oocyte vestments. Gamete Res 1989; 22: 443-69.
  4. Ombelet W, Menkveld R, Kruger TF, Steeno O. Sperm mor- pho logy assessment: historical review in relation to fertility. Hum Reprod Update 1995; 1: 543-57.
  5. Eliasson R, Mossberg B, Camner P, Afzelius BA. The immotile- cilia syndrome. A congenital ciliary abnormality as an etiologic factor in chronic airway infections and male sterility. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 1-6.
  6. Dadoune JP, Mayaux MJ, Guihard-Moscato ML. Correlation between defects in chromatin condensation of human sperma- tozoa stained by aniline blue and semen characteristics. Andrologia 1988; 20: 211-7.
  7. Avendaño C, Franchi A, Taylor S, Morshedi M, Bocca S, et al. Fragmentation of DNA in morphologically normal human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 1077-84.
  8. Menkveld R, Swanson RJ, Kotze TJ, Kruger TF. Comparison of a discontinuous Percoll gradient method versus a swim- up method: effects on sperm morphology and other semen parameters. Andrologia 1990; 22: 152-8.
  9. Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FS, Lombard CJ, Van der Merwe JP, et al. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 1118-23.
  10. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
  11. Enginsu ME, Dumoulin JC, Pieters MH, Bras M, Evers JL, et al. Evaluation of human sperm morphology using strict criteria after Diff-Quik staining: correlation of morphology with fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 854-8.
  12. Kobayashi T, Jinno M, Sugimura K, Nozawa S, Sugiyama T, et al. Sperm morphological assessment based on strict criteria and in- vitro fertilization outcome. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 983-6.
  13. Jeulin C, Feneux D, Serres C, Jouannet P, Guillet-Rosso F, et al. Sperm factors related to failure of human in-vitro fertilization. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 76: 735-44.
  14. Jouannet P, Ducot B, Feneux D, Spira A. Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I. Study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl 1988; 11: 379-94.
  15. Menkveld R, Rhemrev JP, Franken DR, Vermeiden JP, Kruger TF. Acrosomal morphology as a novel criterion for male fertility diagnosis: relation with acrosin activity, morphology (strict criteria), and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 637-44.
  16. Swan SH, Brazil C, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Kruse RL, et al. Study For Future Families Research Group. Geographic differences in semen quality of fertile U.S. males. Environ Health Perspect 2003; 111: 414-20.
  17. Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O. Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl 2006; 27: 66-71.
  18. Paasch U, Salzbrunn A, Glander HJ, Plambeck K, Salzbrunn H, et al. Semen quality in sub-fertile range for a significant proportion of young men from the general German population: a co-ordinated, controlled study of 791 men from Hamburg and Leipzig. Int J Androl 2008; 31: 93-102.
  19. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1388-93.
  20. Auger J, Eustache F. Standardisation de la classification morphologique des spermatozoïdes humains selon la méthode de David modifiée. Andrologie 2000; 10: 358-73.
  21. Auger J, Eustache F, Andersen AG, Irvine DS, Jørgensen N, et al. Sperm morphological defects related to environment, lifestyle and medical history of 1 001 male partners of pregnant women from four European cities. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2710-7.
  22. Chemes EH, Rawe YV. Sperm pathology: a step beyond descriptive morphology. Origin, characterization and fertility potential of abnormal sperm phenotypes in infertile men. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 405-28.
  23. Lähdetie J. Occupation-and exposure-related studies on human sperm. J Occup Environ Med 1995; 37: 922-30.
  24. Jensen TK, Bonde JP, Joffe M. The influence of occupational exposure on male reproductive function. Occup Med (Lond) 2006; 56: 544-53.
  25. Bigelow PL, Jarrell J, Young MR, Keefe TJ, Love EJ. Association of semen quality and occupational factors: comparison of case- control analysis and analysis of continuous variables. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 11-8.
  26. Tielemans E, van Kooij R, te Velde ER, Burdorf A, Heederik D. Pesticide exposure and decreased fertilisation rates in vitro. Lancet 1999; 354: 484-5.
  27. Giblin PT, Poland ML, Moghissi KS, Ager JW, Olson JM. Effects of stress and characteristic adaptability on semen quality in healthy men. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 127-32.
  28. Mayaux MJ, Schwartz D, Czyglik F, David G. Conception rate according to semen characteristics in a series of 15 364 insemination cycles: results of a multivariate analysis. Andrologia 1985; 17: 9-15.
  29. Auger J, Mesbah M, Huber C, Dadoune JP. Aniline blue staining as a marker of sperm chromatin defects associated with different semen characteristics discriminates between proven fertile and suspected infertile men. Int J Androl 1990; 13: 452-62. npg
  30. Menkveld R, Wong WY, Lombard CJ, Wetzels AM, Thomas CM, et al. Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1165-71.
  31. Aziz N, Buchan I, Taylor C, Kingsland CR, Lewis-Jones I. The sperm deformity index: a reliable predictor of the outcome of oocyte fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1996; 66: 1000-8.
  32. Aziz N, Agarwal A, Lewis-Jones I, Sharma RK, Thomas Jr. AJ. Novel associations between specific sperm morphological defects and leukocytospermia. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 621-7.
  33. Aziz N, Said T, Paasch U, Agarwal A. The relationship between human sperm apoptosis, morphology and the sperm deformity index. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1413-9.
  34. Eustache F, Auger J. Inter-individual variability in the morpho- logical assessment of human sperm: effect of the level of experience and the use of standard methods. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1018-22.
  35. Cooper TG, Neuwinger J, Bahrs S, Nieschlag E. Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 172-8.
  36. Cooper TG, Atkinson AD, Nieschlag E. Experience with external quality control in spermatology. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 765-9.
  37. Moruzzi JF, Wyrobek AJ, Mayall BH, Gledhill BL. Quantifi- cation and classification of human sperm morphology by computer-assisted image analysis. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 142-52.
  38. Davis RO, Bain DE, Siemers RJ, Thal DM, Andrew JB, et al. Accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human automated sperm morphometry instrument. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 763-9.
  39. Kruger TF, du Toit TC, Franken DR, Menkveld R, Lombard CJ. Sperm morphology: assessing the agreement between the manual method (strict criteria) and the sperm morphology analyzer IVOS. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 134-41.
  40. Coetzee K, de Villiers A, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ. Clinical value of using an automated sperm morphology analyzer (IVOS). Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 222-5.
  41. Davis RO, Gravance CG. Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 412-7.
  42. Gandini L, Lombardo F, Paoli D, Caponecchia L, Familiari G, et al. Study of apoptotic DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 830-9.
  43. Prisant N, Escalier D, Soufir JC, Morillon M, Schoevaert D, et al. Ultrastructural nuclear defects and increased chromosome aneuploidies in spermatozoa with elongated heads. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1052-9.
  44. Benzacken B, Gavelle FM, Martin-Pont B, Dupuy O, Lièvre N, et al. Familial sperm polyploidy induced by genetic spermato- genesis failure: case report. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2646-51.
  45. Courtot AM, Escalier D, Jouannet P, David G. Impaired ability of human spermatozoa to penetrate zona-free hamster oocytes: is a postacrosomal sheath anomaly involved? Gamete Res 1987; 17: 145-56.
  46. Longo FJ, Krohne G, Franke WW. Basic proteins of the peri- nuclear theca of mammalian spermatozoa and spermatids: a novel class of cytoskeletal elements. J Cell Biol 1987; 105: 1105-20.
  47. Escalier D. Failure of differentiation of the nuclear-perinuclear skeletal complex in the round-headed human spermatozoa. Int J Dev Biol 1990; 34: 287-97.
  48. Albert M, Gallo JM, Escalier D, Parseghian N, Jouannet P, et al. Unexplained in-vitro fertilization failure: implication of acrosomes with a small reacting region, as revealed by a monoclonal antibody. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1249-56.
  49. Holstein AF, Schirren CG, Schirren C, Mauss J. Round headed spermatozoa: a cause of male infertility. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1973; 98: 61-2.
  50. Gomez E, Buckingham DW, Brindle J, Lanzafame F, Irvine DS, et al. Development of an image analysis system to monitor the retention of residual cytoplasm by human spermatozoa: correlation with biochemical markers of the cytoplasmic space, oxidative stress, and sperm function. J Androl 1996; 17: 276- 87.
  51. Zamboni L. Sperm structure and its relevance to infertility. An electron microscopic study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992; 116: 325-44.
  52. Chemes HE, Puigdomenech ET, Carizza C, Olmedo SB, Zanchetti F, et al. Acephalic spermatozoa and abnormal development of the head-neck attachment: a human syndrome of genetic origin. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1811-8.
  53. Saïas-Magnan J, Metzler-Guillemain C, Mercier G, Carles- Marcorelles F, Grillo JM, et al. Failure of pregnancy after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with decapitated spermatozoa: case report. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1989-92.
  54. Chemes HE, Olmedo SB, Carrere C, Oses R, Carizza C, et al. Ultrastructural pathology of the sperm flagellum: association between flagellar pathology and fertility prognosis in severely asthenozoospermic men. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 2521-6.
  55. Feneux D, Serres C, Jouannet P. Sliding spermatozoa: a dyskinesia responsible for human infertility? Fertil Steril 1985; 44: 508-11.
  56. Lampiao F, du Plessis SS. Comparing the multi-ZSC one- step standardized swim-up method to the double-wash swim- up method with regard to the effects of sperm separation on morphology, head morphometry, and acrosome reaction inducibility. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 739-41.
  57. Ramos L, Hendriks JC, Peelen P, Braat DD, Wetzels AM. Use of computerized karyometric image analysis for evaluation of human spermatozoa. J Androl 2002; 23: 882-8.
  58. Spermon JR, Ramos L, Wetzels AM, Sweep CG, Braat DD, et al. Sperm integrity pre-and post-chemotherapy in men with testicular germ cell cancer. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1781-6.
  59. Zavaczki Z, Celik-Ozenci C, Ovari L, Jakab A, Sati GL, et al. Dimensional assessment of X-bearing and Y-bearing haploid and disomic human sperm with the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization and objective morphometry. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 121-7.
  60. Garrett C, Liu DY, Clarke GN, Rushford DD, Baker HW. Automated semen analysis: 'zona pellucida preferred' sperm morphometry and straight-line velocity are related to pregnancy rate in subfertile couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1643-9.
  61. Gergely A, Kovanci E, Senturk L, Cosmi E, Vigue L, et al. Morphometric assessment of mature and diminished-maturity human spermatozoa: sperm regions that reflect differences in maturity. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2007-14.
  62. Fenster L, Katz DF, Wyrobek AJ, Pieper C, Rempel DM, et al. Effects of psychological stress on human semen quality. J Androl 1997; 18: 194-202.
  63. Schrader SM, Turner TW, Simon SD. Longitudinal study of semen quality of unexposed workers: sperm head morphometry. J Androl 1990; 11: 32-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Auger, J.
Affiliations
Hôpital Cochin (FR)
Corresponding author
Auger, Jacques
ORCID
Auger, Jacques
Venue
Asian Journal of Andrology
Publisher
Medknow
Published
2010-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
36-46
ISSN
  • 1008-682X (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-7262
DOI
10.1038/aja.2009.8
PMC
PMC3739679
OpenAlex
W2100182972
Cited by
90
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Asian Journal of Andrology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Male Reproductive Health Studies
Keywords
sperm morphology assessment, abnormal spermatozoa, teratozoospermia, video microscopy, computer vision, male infertility diagnosis, fertility prediction, sperm morphology classification
MeSH terms
Biometry, Humans, Male, Manuals as Topic, Spermatozoa, World Health Organization, Semen Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review