Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation

Junior, Lincoln; Da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André; De Mello, Mariana; Dos Santos, Alexandre; Da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane; Fontoura, Paula

doi:10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272

Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation

Authors

Lincoln Junior ¹

André da Cunha Barreto-Vianna ²

Mariana de Mello ³

Alexandre dos Santos ²

Cristiane da Fonte Ramos ⁴

Paula Fontoura ³

¹ Rio de Janeiro Sperm Bank (Banco de Sêmen do Rio de Janeiro), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

² Federal University of Paraná-Palotina, Paraná, Brazil

³ Rio de Janeiro Sperm Bank (Banco de Sêmen do Rio de Janeiro), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

⁴ State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272

Abstract

Background: The objective of the current study was comparing the impact of two staining techniques on semen morphological parameters and their influence on patient diagnosis. The ideal staining method should preserve cell integrity while providing detailed information. Methods: Semen samples from fifty men were stained using Diff-Quick or Spermac methods. Morphological parameters were classified based on the Tygerberg criteria, and final diagnosis was according to WHO manual guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed through conducting paired t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, with GLIMMIX and Fisher's exact test for determining the significance (p≤0.05). Results: Both staining methods highlighted head and tail regions, with Spermac offering better visualization of the midpiece. Spermac demonstrated fewer normal spermatozoa (2.8±0.3%) compared to Diff-Quick (3.98±0.4%; p=0.0385). Midpiece abnormalities were more evident with Spermac (55.7±2.1%) than Diff-Quick (24.8±2.0%; p<0.0001). No significant difference was found in head and tail abnormalities (p>0.05). Conclusion: Diff-Quick staining resulted in a higher proportion of normal spermatozoa, primarily due to its midpiece evaluation. The choice of staining method significantly impacts the diagnosis of infertile males. These findings have important implications for clinical practice and future research, suggesting the need for further investigations to assess different staining methods and determine optimal diagnostic thresholds.

Keywords

Human

morphology

Spermatozoa

staining

World Health organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. 292 p.

Gatimel N, Moreau J, Parinaud J, Léandri RD. Sperm morphology: assessment, pathophysiology, clinical relevance, and state of the art in 2017. Andrology. 2017;5(5):845-62.

Maree L, Plessis SS Du, Menkveld R, Horst G Van Der. Morphometric dimensions of the human sperm head depend on the staining method used. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1369-82.

Horst G Van Der, Maree L. SpermBlue: a new universal stain for human and animal sperm which is also amenable to automated sperm morphology analysis. Biotech Histochem. 2009;84(6):299-308.

Mortimer D, Björndahl L, Barratt CL, Castilla JA, Menkveld R, Kvist U, et al. A practical guide to basic laboratory andrology. 2nd ed. UK: Cambridge university press; 2022. 352 p.

Tuset VM, Dietrich GJ, Wojtczak M, Słowińska M, Monserrat J de, Ciereszko A. Comparison of three staining techniques for the morphometric study of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spermatozoa. Theriogenology. 2008;69(8):1033-8.

Runcan EE, Pozor MA, Zambrano GL, Benson S, Macpherson ML. Use of two conventional staining methods to assess the acrosomal status of stallion spermatozoa. Equine Vet J. 2014;46(4):503-6.

World Health organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. 271 p.

Menkveld R, Stander FS, Kotze TJ, Kruger TF, Zyl JA van. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod. 1990;5(5):586-92.

Gonçalves J, Pizzichini E, Pizzichini MMM, Steidle LJM, Rocha CC, Ferreira SC, et al. Reliability of a rapid hematology stain for sputum cytology. J Bras Pneumol. 2014;40(3):250-8.

Henkel R, Schreiber G, Sturmhoefel A, Hipler UC, Zermann DH, Menkveld R. Comparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(2):449-55.

Natali I, Muratori M, Sarli V, Vannuccini M, Cipriani S, Niccoli L, et al. Scoring human sperm morphology using Testsimplets and Diff-Quik slides. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1227-32.e2.

Chan PJ, Corselli JU, Jacobson JD, Patton WC, King A. Spermac stain analysis of human sperm acrosomes. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(1):124-8.

Schaäfer S, Holzmann A. The use of transmigration and Spermac stain to evaluate epididymal cat spermatozoa. Anim Reprod Sci. 2000;59(3-4):201-11.

Agarwal A, Sharma R, Gupta S, Finelli R, Parekh N, Selvam MKP, et al. Sperm morphology assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Reliable results require focus on standardization, quality control, and training. World J Men's Health. 2022;40(3):347-60.

Chemes HE, Alvarez Sedo C. Tales of the tail and sperm head aches: changing concepts on the prognostic significance of sperm pathologies affecting the head, neck and tail. Asian J Androl. 2012;14(1):14-23.

Nakamura S, Terada Y, Rawe VY, Uehara S, Morito Y, Yoshimoto T, et al. A trial to restore defective human sperm centrosomal function. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(7):1933-7.

Ugajin T, Terada Y, Hasegawa H, Nabeshima H, Suzuki K, Yaegashi N. The shape of the sperm midpiece in intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection relates sperm centrosomal function. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(2-3):75-81.