Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Published-Ahead-of-Print July 3, 2008, DOI:10.2164/jandrol.108.005819

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

Method-Related Estimates of Sperm Viability

Trevor G. Cooper * and Barbara Hellenkemper

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: trevorg.cooper{at}ukmuenster.de.

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


Key words: Semen Analysis • Sperm • optics • technique






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2008 by The American Society of Andrology.