This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 30/3/214    most recent Author Manuscript (PDF) Author Manuscript (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, T. G. Articles by Hellenkemper, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooper, T. G. Articles by Hellenkemper, B.

Andrology Lab Corner^*

Method-Related Estimates of Sperm Vitality

From the Centre of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology of the University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Correspondence to: Dr T. G. Cooper, Centre of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology of the University, Domagkstrasse 11, D-48129 Münster, Germany (e-mail: TrevorG.Cooper{at}ukmuenster.de).

Abstract

Comparison of methods that estimate viability of human spermatozoa by monitoring head membrane permeability revealed that wet preparations (whether using positive or negative phase-contrast microscopy) generated significantly higher percentages of nonviable cells than did air-dried eosin-nigrosin smears. Only with the latter method did the sum of motile (presumed live) and stained (presumed dead) preparations never exceed 100%, making this the method of choice for sperm viability estimates.