Developing flow cytometry for precise evaluation of amphibian sperm viability: technical report
Leah Jacobs
A * , Talisin Hammond A , Natalie Calatayud A B C , Patricia Byrne A and Thomas Jensen A D
A
B
C
D
Abstract
In the past decade, flow cytometry has become a useful tool for evaluating cellular viability characteristics for non-domestic animals such as non-human primates, marine animals, and birds. This technology has the potential to vastly improve sperm-quality assessments, concentration counts and cell sorting in a more time-efficient and reliable manner.
The study aimed to validate the efficacy of using flow cytometry for amphibian sperm by comparing its results with those obtained through traditional means of sperm-quality assessment.
Sperm samples were collected from testes macerates of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) and subjected to both flow cytometry and microscopy analyses. Flow cytometry allowed for the simultaneous assessment of sperm viability and concentration by using fluorescent probes, whereas microscopy provided a traditional means of assessing sperm characteristics.
Sperm concentrations measured by flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy were highly correlated, although flow cytometry methods estimated higher concentrations. Sperm viability measured by flow cytometry and that measured by fluorescent microscopy were not significantly correlated and were significantly different, varying by only ~8% in viability, on average.
Although flow cytometry overestimated concentration and live/dead assessments, the discrepancies were slight enough to indicate that flow cytometry can still be a valuable method for assessing amphibian sperm.
These results validated the utility of flow cytometry as a reliable tool for assessing amphibian sperm viability and concentration, offering a promising alternative to traditional, time-consuming methods.
Keywords: amphibian, assisted reproductive technology, flow cytometry, fluorescence, sperm, sperm viability, testis, Xenopus.
References
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Available at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823
Brando B, Göhde W, Jr., Scarpati B, D’Avanzo G (2001) The ‘vanishing counting bead’ phenomenon: effect on absolute CD34+ cell counting in phosphate-buffered saline-diluted leukapheresis samples. Cytometry 43, 154-160.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Centola GM (1996) Comparison of manual microscopic and computer-assisted methods for analysis of sperm count and motility. Archives of Andrology 36, 1-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
De Baulny BO, Le Vern Y, Kerboeuf D, Maisse G (1997) Flow cytometric evaluation of mitochondrial activity and membrane integrity in fresh and cryopreserved rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spermatozoa. Cryobiology 34, 141-149.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Freund M, Carol B (1964) Factors affecting haemocytometer counts of sperm concentration in human semen. Reproduction 8, 149-155.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gillan L, Evans G, Maxwell WMC (2005) Flow cytometric evaluation of sperm parameters in relation to fertility potential. Theriogenology 63, 445-457.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Graham JK (2001) Assessment of sperm quality: a flow cytometric approach. Animal Reproduction Science 68, 239-247.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Hossain MS, Johannisson A, Wallgren M, Nagy S, Siqueira AP, Rodriguez-Martinez H (2011) Flow cytometry for the assessment of animal sperm integrity and functionality: state of the art. Asian Journal of Andrology 13, 406-419.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82, 1-26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lo K, Brinkman RR, Gottardo R (2008) Automated gating of flow cytometry data via robust model-based clustering. Cytometry Part A 73A, 321-332.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Martínez-Pastor F, Mata-Campuzano M, Álvarez-Rodríguez M, Álvarez M, Anel L, De Paz P (2010) Probes and techniques for sperm evaluation by flow cytometry. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 45, 67-78.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Matos DM (2024) ‘Protein-resistant vanishing counting bead’ phenomenon: a new problem with single-platforms for CD34+ quantification? Cytotherapy 26, 649-651.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Prathalingam NS, Holt WW, Revell SG, Jones S, Watson PF (2006) The precision and accuracy of six different methods to determine sperm concentration. Journal of Andrology 27, 257-262.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org
Sikka SC, Hellstrom WJG (2016) Current updates on laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of male reproductive failure. Asian Journal of Andrology 18, 392-401.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stoffel MA, Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2017) rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8, 1639-1644.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Yang H, Daly J, Tiersch TR (2016) Determination of sperm concentration using flow cytometry with simultaneous analysis of sperm plasma membrane integrity in zebrafish Danio rerio. Cytometry Part A 89, 350-356.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
