Cryoprotectant‐free vitrification of human spermatozoa in new artificial seminal fluid

• Published in: Andrology (Oxford) Vol. 4; no. 6; pp. 1037 - 1044
• Main Authors: Agha‐Rahimi, A., Khalili, M. A., Nottola, S. A., Miglietta, S., Moradi, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-11-2016
• Subjects: artificial seminal fluid; Cell Membrane - ultrastructure; Cell Shape - physiology; Cryopreservation - methods; human spermatozoa; Humans; Male; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Microscopy, Electron, Transmission; Mitochondria - ultrastructure; Semen Preservation - methods; seminal fluid; Sperm Motility; Spermatozoa - cytology; Spermatozoa - ultrastructure; Vitrification; artificial seminal fluid; seminal fluid; human spermatozoa; vitrification
• ISSN: 2047-2919; 2047-2927
• DOI: 10.1111/andr.12212

Summary
Vitrification is a new method that has been recently introduced in Assisted Reproduction Technique programs. The aim of this study was to design a new medium similar to normal human seminal fluid (SF), formulation artificial seminal fluid (ASF), and to compare the cryoprotective potency of this medium with SF and human tubal fluid (HTF) medium. Thirty normal ejaculates were processed with the swim‐up technique and sperm suspensions were divided into four aliquots: (i) fresh sample (control); (ii) vitrification in HTF medium supplemented with 5 mg/mL human serum albumin and 0.25 mol sucrose (Vit HTF); (iii) vitrification with patients’ SF (Vit SF); and (iv) vitrification in ASF (Vit ASF). After warming, sperm parameters of motility, viability, and morphology were analyzed using WHO criteria. Also, sperm pellets were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and processed for scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy observations. The results showed that progressive motility (46.09 ± 10.33 vs. 36.80 ± 13.75), grade A motility (36.59 ± 11.40 vs. 16.41 ± 11.24), and normal morphology (18.74 ± 8.35 vs. 11.85 ± 5.84) and viability (68.22 ± 10.83 vs. 60.86 ± 11.72) of spermatozoa were significantly higher in Vit ASF than in Vit HTF. All parameters were better in Vit ASF than in Vit SF, but only viability was significantly different (p = 0.006). After cryopreservation, deep invagination in cytoplasm and mechanically weak point sites and folded tail were commonly observed. But, this phenomenon was more significant in Vit HTF and Vit SF than in ASF (p < 0.05). In transmission electron microscopy evaluation, acrosome damage, plasma membrane loss, chromatin vacuolation, and disruption of mitochondria arrangement and structures were observed in all vitrified groups. Adherence of several tail sections together was also seen in all cryo groups. But this was seen more in Vit HTF and Vit SF than in ASF (p < 0.05). In conclusion, vitrification of human spermatozoa with ASF can effectively preserve the quality of sperm motility in comparison with Vit HTF.