4.0 Article

Assessment of Spermatozoa Morphology under Light Microscopy with Different Histologic Stains and Comparison of Morphometric Measurements

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 1544-1550

Publisher

SOC CHILENA ANATOMIA
DOI: 10.4067/S0717-95022012000400045

Keywords

Spermatozoa; Morphology; Histological stains

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim was to examine the morphology of spermatozoa with different staining methods and aimed to find the better staining methods for morphology of spermatozoa in our study. Randomized 67 patients taken for the study who were admitted to Assisted Reproductive Techniques Unit. In the first part of the study, smears were stained with Hematoxylin Eosin (HE), Toluidin Blue (TB), Giemsa, Wright, ferrous Weigert haematoxylin stain, Orange G, eosin-aniline blue dye, Shorr Method, Papanicolau, Berg Method, Light Green stain, Acridine Orange (AO) and Janus Green dyes. In the second part of the study, smear preparations of 10 patients with normozoospermic were stained with HE, Toluidin Blue (TB), Shorr Method and Papanicolau. Four measurements were made including the middle piece, head length- head width and tail length for 200 spermatozoa with normal morphology. Comparisons were made between the stains that which showed a better morphology. Condensation assessment was not possible in smears stained with Shorr, Berg, Method, AO. Better assessment of condensation could be made in other stains. In the second part the smallest values belonged to of TB stain according to measurements of head of the spermatozoa. There was a significant difference at the head length with TB stain. Although measurements of Shorr and Papanicolau are close to each other and the largest values belonged to Papanicolau dye. It was concluded that measurement values in human sperm morphology could alter with the used staining method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available