Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2018 Mar;61(2):179-191. 10.5468/ogs.2018.61.2.179.

Clinical assessment of the male fertility

• Khatun A
• Rahman MS
• Pang MG

• KMID: 2420171
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2018.61.2.179

Abstract

The evaluation of infertility in males consists of physical examination and semen analyses. Standardized semen analyses depend on the descriptive analysis of sperm motility, morphology, and concentration, with a threshold level that must be surpassed to be considered a fertile spermatozoon. Nonetheless, these conventional parameters are not satisfactory for clinicians since 25% of infertility cases worldwide remain unexplained. Therefore, newer tests methods have been established to investigate sperm physiology and functions by monitoring characteristics such as motility, capacitation, the acrosome reaction, reactive oxygen species, sperm DNA damage, chromatin structure, zona pellucida binding, and sperm-oocyte fusion. After the introduction of intracytoplasmic sperm injection technique, sperm maturity, morphology, and aneuploidy conditions have gotten more attention for investigating unexplained male infertility. In the present article, recent advancements in research regarding the utilization of male fertility prediction tests and their role and accuracy are reviewed.

Keyword

Infertility; Semen analysis; Spermatozoa

MeSH Terms

Acrosome Reaction
Aneuploidy
Chromatin
DNA Damage
Fertility*
Humans
Infertility
Infertility, Male
Male*
Physical Examination
Physiology
Reactive Oxygen Species
Semen Analysis
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
Sperm Motility
Spermatozoa
Zona Pellucida
Chromatin
Reactive Oxygen Species

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Effects of sperm treatment based on TEST-yolk buffer (TYB), Biggers-Whitten-Whittingham (BWW), and human serum albumin (HSA) on the outcome of the sperm penetration assay (SPA). (A) Effect of TYB and BWW on the outcome of SPA tests. (B) Human serum albumin concentrations in fertilization media. (C) Human serum albumin concentration in swim up method. The figure has been modified, and citing the original source published by Oh et al. [59]. PI, penetration index; PR, plasticity range.

Reference

1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009; 92:1520–1524.

2. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015; 13:37.

3. Samplaski MK, Agarwal A, Sharma R, Sabanegh E. New generation of diagnostic tests for infertility: review of specialized semen tests. Int J Urol. 2010; 17:839–847.

4. Rahman MS, Pang MG. Sperm biology: towards understanding global issue of male infertility. Austin Androl. 2016; 1:1003.

5. Visconti PE. Understanding the molecular basis of sperm capacitation through kinase design. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106:667–668.

6. Watanabe T, Ohkawa K, Kasai S, Ebara S, Nakano Y, Watanabe Y. The effects of dietary vitamin B12 deficiency on sperm maturation in developing and growing male rats. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 2003; 43:57–64.

7. Gorpinchenko I, Nikitin O, Banyra O, Shulyak A. The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality. Cent European J Urol. 2014; 67:65–71.

8. Bretveld R, Brouwers M, Ebisch I, Roeleveld N. Influence of pesticides on male fertility. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007; 33:13–28.

9. Rahman MS, Kwon WS, Karmakar PC, Yoon SJ, Ryu BY, Pang MG. Gestational exposure to bisphenol A affects the function and proteome profile of F1 spermatozoa in adult mice. Environ Health Perspect. 2017; 125:238–245.

10. Esteves SC. Clinical relevance of routine semen analysis and controversies surrounding the 2010 World Health Organization criteria for semen examination. Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 40:443–453.

11. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, Coutifaris C, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345:1388–1393.

12. Glazener CM, Coulson C, Lambert PA, Watt EM, Hinton RA, Kelly NJ, et al. The value of artificial insemination with husband’s semen in infertility due to failure of postcoital sperm-mucus penetration--controlled trial of treatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 94:774–778.

13. Swan SH. Semen quality in fertile US men in relation to geographical area and pesticide exposure. Int J Androl. 2006; 29:62–68.

14. Nallella KP, Sharma RK, Aziz N, Agarwal A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85:629–634.

15. Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O. Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl. 2006; 27:66–71.

16. Bonde JP, Ernst E, Jensen TK, Hjollund NH, Kolstad H, Henriksen TB, et al. Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners. Lancet. 1998; 352:1172–1177.

17. Aitken RJ, Best FS, Warner P, Templeton A. A prospective study of the relationship between semen quality and fertility in cases of unexplained infertility. J Androl. 1984; 5:297–303.

18. Lewis SE. Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility? Reproduction. 2007; 134:31–40.

19. Wang C, Swerdloff RS. Limitations of semen analysis as a test of male fertility and anticipated needs from newer tests. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102:1502–1507.

20. Aitken RJ, Sutton M, Warner P, Richardson DW. Relationship between the movement characteristics of human spermatozoa and their ability to penetrate cervical mucus and zona-free hamster oocytes. J Reprod Fertil. 1985; 73:441–449.

21. Aitken RJ. Sperm function tests and fertility. Int J Androl. 2006; 29:69–75.

22. Mortimer ST. CASA--practical aspects. J Androl. 2000; 21:515–524.

23. Paston MJ, Sarkar S, Oates RP, Badawy SZ. Computer-aided semen analysis variables as predictors of male fertility potential. Arch Androl. 1994; 33:93–99.

24. Hirano Y, Shibahara H, Obara H, Suzuki T, Takamizawa S, Yamaguchi C, et al. Relationships between sperm motility characteristics assessed by the computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) and fertilization rates in vitro . J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001; 18:213–218.

25. Peedicayil J, Deendayal M, Sadasivan G, Shivaji S. Assessment of hyperactivation, acrosome reaction and motility characteristics of spermatozoa from semen of men of proven fertility and unexplained infertility. Andrologia. 1997; 29:209–218.

26. Shibahara H, Obara H. Prediction of pregnancy by intrauterine insemination using CASA estimates and strict criteria in patients with male factor infertility. Int J Androl. 2004; 27:63–68.

27. Davis RO, Katz DF. Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl. 1993; 14:385–394.

28. Ho HC, Suarez SS. Hyperactivation of mammalian spermatozoa: function and regulation. Reproduction. 2001; 122:519–526.

29. Sukcharoen N, Keith J, Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Definition of the optimal criteria for identifying hyperactivated human spermatozoa at 25 Hz using in-vitro fertilization as a functional end-point. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10:2928–2937.

30. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Veeck LL, et al. New method of evaluating sperm morphology with predictive value for human in vitro fertilization. Urology. 1987; 30:248–251.

31. Moon SY, Choi YM, Kim SH, Oh SK, Suh CS, Lee JY, et al. Analysis of strict morphology of human spermatozoa. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 41:2923–2931.

32. Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16:231–245.

33. Coetzee K, Kruge TF, Lombard CJ. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 1998; 4:73–82.

34. Menkveld R, Holleboom CA, Rhemrev JP. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl. 2011; 13:59–68.

35. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Ombelet W. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7:495–500.

36. Check ML, Bollendorf A, Check JH, Katsoff D. Reevaluation of the clinical importance of evaluating sperm morphology using strict criteria. Arch Androl. 2002; 48:1–3.

37. Kiefer D, Check JH, Katsoff D. The value of motile density, strict morphology, and the hypoosmotic swelling test in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Arch Androl. 1996; 37:57–60.

38. Menkveld R, Stander FS, Kotze TJ, Kruger TF, van Zyl JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5:586–592.

39. Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen N, Horte A, et al. Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:503–515.

40. Buck Louis GM, Sundaram R, Schisterman EF, Sweeney A, Lynch CD, Kim S, et al. Semen quality and time to pregnancy: the Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment Study. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101:453–462.

41. Zinaman MJ, Brown CC, Selevan SG, Clegg ED. Semen quality and human fertility: a prospective study with healthy couples. J Androl. 2000; 21:145–153.

42. Kovac JR, Smith RP, Cajipe M, Lamb DJ, Lipshultz LI. Men with a complete absence of normal sperm morphology exhibit high rates of success without assisted reproduction. Asian J Androl. 2017; 19:39–42.

43. Correa JR, Zavos PM. The hypoosmotic swelling test: its employment as an assay to evaluate the functional integrity of the frozen-thawed bovine sperm membrane. Theriogenology. 1994; 42:351–360.

44. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Simultaneous measurement by flow cytometry of sperm cell viability and mitochondrial membrane potential related to cell motility. J Histochem Cytochem. 1982; 30:279–280.

45. Samplaski MK, Dimitromanolakis A, Lo KC, Grober ED, Mullen B, Garbens A, et al. The relationship between sperm viability and DNA fragmentation rates. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015; 13:42.

46. Cummins JM, Pember SM, Jequier AM, Yovich JL, Hartmann PE. A test of the human sperm acrosome reaction following ionophore challenge. Relationship to fertility and other seminal parameters. J Androl. 1991; 12:98–103.

47. Ryu BY, Kim SH, Park SY, Jee BC, Jung BJ, Kim HS, et al. Efficacy of acrosome reaction after ionophore challenge (ARIC) test in evaluation of fertilization capacity of human spermatozoa. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 41:2562–2570.

48. Krausz C, Bonaccorsi L, Maggio P, Luconi M, Criscuoli L, Fuzzi B, et al. Two functional assays of sperm responsiveness to progesterone and their predictive values in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1996; 11:1661–1667.

49. Sigman M, Baazeem A, Zini A. Semen analysis and sperm function assays: what do they mean? Semin Reprod Med. 2009; 27:115–123.

50. Overstreet JW, Hembree WC. Penetration of the zona pellucida of nonliving human oocytes by human spermatozoa in vitro . Fertil Steril. 1976; 27:815–831.

51. Arslan M, Morshedi M, Arslan EO, Taylor S, Kanik A, Duran HE, et al. Predictive value of the hemizona assay for pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85:1697–1707.

52. Yanagimachi R. Specificity of sperm-egg interaction. In : Edidin M, Johnson MH, editors. Immunobiology of gametes. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press;1977. p. 255–295.

53. Pang MG, Oh SK, Shin CJ, Kim JG, Moon SY, Chang YS, et al. Study on the clinical validity of sperm penetration assay. Korean J Fertil Steril. 1993; 20:1–7.

54. Pang MG, Jung BJ, Moon SY. Influence of sperm fertilizing capacity on embryonic development and pregnancy in in vitro fertilization. Korean J Fertil Steril. 2003; 30:105–109.

55. Chang YS, Lee JY, Moon SY, Kim JG, Pang MG, Shin CJ. Factors affecting penetration of zona-free hamster ova. Arch Androl. 1990; 25:213–224.

56. Kim SH, Kim MH, Jee BC, Jung BJ, Kim HS, Ryu BY, et al. Efficacy of zona-free hamster ova sperm penetration assay (SPA) in evaluation of fertilization capacity of human spermatozoa. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 41:2401–2410.

57. Aitken RJ, Ross A, Lees MM. Analysis of sperm function in Kartagener's syndrome. Fertil Steril. 1983; 40:696–698.

58. Kim SH, Pang MG, Shin CJ, Kim JG, Moon SY, Lee JY, et al. Establishment of normal fertile range of sperm zona-free hamster ova penetration assay in Korean male. Korean J Fertil Steril. 1991; 18:63–71.

59. Oh SA, You YA, Park YJ, Pang MG. The sperm penetration assay predicts the litter size in pigs. Int J Androl. 2010; 33:604–612.

60. Moon SY, Ryu BY, Pang MG, Oh SK, Lee JH, Suh CS, et al. Comparison of sperm morphology evaluation using strict criteria, acrosome reaction following ionophore challenge and zona-free hamster ova sperm penetration assay as prognostic factors in diagnosis of male infertility and in vitro fertilization. Korean J Fertil Steril. 2002; 29:57–66.

61. Aitken RJ, Baker MA, O'Bryan M. Shedding light on chemiluminescence: the application of chemiluminescence in diagnostic andrology. J Androl. 2004; 25:455–465.

62. Aitken RJ, Ryan AL, Curry BJ, Baker MA. Multiple forms of redox activity in populations of human spermatozoa. Mol Hum Reprod. 2003; 9:645–661.

63. Kobayashi H, Gil-Guzman E, Mahran AM. Quality control of reactive oxygen species measurement by luminol-dependent chemiluminescence assay. J Androl. 2001; 22:568–574.

64. Said TM, Agarwal A, Sharma RK, Mascha E, Sikka SC, Thomas AJ Jr. Human sperm superoxide anion generation and correlation with semen quality in patients with male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82:871–877.

65. Agarwal A, Roychoudhury S, Bjugstad KB, Cho CL. Oxidation-reduction potential of semen: what is its role in the treatment of male infertility? Ther Adv Urol. 2016; 8:302–318.

66. Cho C, Jung-Ha H, Willis WD, Goulding EH, Stein P, Xu Z, et al. Protamine 2 deficiency leads to sperm DNA damage and embryo death in mice. Biol Reprod. 2003; 69:211–217.

67. Lewis SE, Aitken RJ. DNA damage to spermatozoa has impacts on fertilization and pregnancy. Cell Tissue Res. 2005; 322:33–41.

68. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14:1039–1049.

69. Zini A, Meriano J, Kader K, Jarvi K, Laskin CA, Cadesky K. Potential adverse effect of sperm DNA damage on embryo quality after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20:3476–3480.

70. Gandini L, Lombardo F, Paoli D, Caponecchia L, Familiari G, Verlengia C, et al. Study of apoptotic DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15:830–839.

71. Høst E, Lindenberg S, Kahn JA, Christensen F. DNA strand breaks in human sperm cells: a comparison between men with normal and oligozoospermic sperm samples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999; 78:336–339.

72. Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Nada EA, El-Tonsy MH, Sharma RK, Meyer A, et al. Negative effects of increased sperm DNA damage in relation to seminal oxidative stress in men with idiopathic and male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2003; 79:Suppl 3. 1597–1605.

73. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erenpreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22:174–179.

74. Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, Lejeune H, Salle B, François Guerin J. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87:93–100.

75. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980; 210:1131–1133.

76. Evenson D, Wixon R. Meta-analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation using the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 12:466–472.

77. Collins JA, Barnhart KT, Schlegel PN. Do sperm DNA integrity tests predict pregnancy with in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril. 2008; 89:823–831.

78. Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J Androl. 2002; 23:25–43.

79. Liu DY, Baker HW. Evaluation and assessment of semen for IVF/ICSI. Asian J Androl. 2002; 4:281–285.

80. Palermo GD, Neri QV, Schlegel PN, Rosenwaks Z. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in extreme cases of male infertility. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e113671.

81. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98:1395–1399.

82. Liu DY, Baker HW. Tests of human sperm function and fertilization in vitro . Fertil Steril. 1992; 58:465–483.

83. Liu DY, Lopata A, Johnston WI, Baker HW. A human sperm-zona pellucida binding test using oocytes that failed to fertilize in vitro . Fertil Steril. 1988; 50:782–788.

84. Palermo GD, Hu JC, Rienzi L, Maggiulli R, Takeuchi T, Yoshida A, et al. Thoughts on IMSI. In : Racowsky C, Schlegel PN, Fauser BC, Carrell DT, editors. Biennial review of infertility. New York (NY): Springer;2011. p. 277–289.

85. Flaherty SP, Payne D, Matthews CD. Fertilization failures and abnormal fertilization after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:Suppl 1. 155–164.

86. Mansour R. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a state of the art technique. Hum Reprod Update. 1998; 4:43–56.

87. Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Kogosowski A, Menezo Y, Barak Y. Real-time fine morphology of motile human sperm cells is associated with IVF-ICSI outcome. J Androl. 2002; 23:1–8.

88. Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Kogosovsky A, Yagoda A, Lederman H, et al. Pregnancy rates are higher with intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection than with conventional intracytoplasmic injection. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80:1413–1419.

89. Perrin A, Nguyen MH, Douet-Guilbert N, Morel F, De Braekeleer M. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: where are we 12 years later? Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 8:261–270.

90. Setti AS, Braga DP, Figueira RC, Iaconelli A Jr, Borges E. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection results in improved clinical outcomes in couples with previous ICSI failures or male factor infertility: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 183:96–103.

91. Teixeira DM, Barbosa MA, Ferriani RA, Navarro PA, Raine-Fenning N, Nastri CO, et al. Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; CD010167.

92. Said TM, Land JA. Effects of advanced selection methods on sperm quality and ART outcome: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17:719–733.

93. Ebner T, Filicori M, Tews G, Parmegiani L. A plea for a more physiological ICSI. Andrologia. 2012; 44:Suppl 1. 2–19.

94. Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S, Troilo E, Ciampaglia W, Filicori M. “Physiologic ICSI”: hyaluronic acid (HA) favors selection of spermatozoa without DNA fragmentation and with normal nucleus, resulting in improvement of embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93:598–604.

95. Prinosilova P, Kruger T, Sati L, Ozkavukcu S, Vigue L, Kovanci E, et al. Selectivity of hyaluronic acid binding for spermatozoa with normal Tygerberg strict morphology. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18:177–183.

96. Jakab A, Sakkas D, Delpiano E, Cayli S, Kovanci E, Ward D, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel selection method for sperm with normal frequency of chromosomal aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84:1665–1673.

97. Castillo-Baso J, Garcia-Villafaña G, Santos-Haliscak R, Diaz P, Sepluveda-Gonzalez J, Hernandez-Ayup S. Embryo quality and reproductive outcomes of spermatozoa selected by physiologic-ICSI or conventional ICSI in patients with kruger <4% and >4% normo-morphology. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96:S159.

98. Worrilow KC, Eid S, Woodhouse D, Witmyer J, Khoury C, Liebermann J. Increased clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) and statistically significant decrease in loss rates using hyaluronan in sperm selection: prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96:S179.

99. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization;2010.

100. Lee K, Hyslop JM, Nanassy L, Machaty Z. Incidence of apoptosis in parthenogenetic porcine embryos generated by using protein kinase or protein synthesis inhibitors. Anim Reprod Sci. 2009; 112:261–272.

101. Van Den Bergh MJ, Fahy-Deshe M, Hohl MK. Pronuclear zygote score following intracytoplasmic injection of hyaluronan-bound spermatozoa: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 19:796–801.

102. Menezo Y, Junca AM, Dumont M, De Mouzon J, Cohen-Bacrie P, Ben Khalifa M. “Physiologic” (hyaluronic acid-carried) ICSI results in the same embryo quality and pregnancy rates as with the use of potentially toxic polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP). Fertil Steril. 2010; 94:S232.

103. O'Flynn O'Brien KL, Varghese AC, Agarwal A. The genetic causes of male factor infertility: a review. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93:1–12.

104. Ferlin A, Raicu F, Gatta V, Zuccarello D, Palka G, Foresta C. Male infertility: role of genetic background. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14:734–745.

105. In't Veld P, Brandenburg H, Verhoeff A, Dhont M, Los F. Sex chromosomal abnormalities and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet. 1995; 346:773.

106. Van Opstal D, Los FJ, Ramlakhan S, Van Hemel JO, Van Den Ouweland AM, Brandenburg H, et al. Determination of the parent of origin in nine cases of prenatally detected chromosome aberrations found after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12:682–686.

107. Pang MG, You YA, Park YJ, Oh SA, Kim DS, Kim YJ. Numerical chromosome abnormalities are associated with sperm tail swelling patterns. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94:1012–1020.

108. You YA, Park YJ, Kwon WS, Yoon SJ, Ryu BY, Kim YJ, et al. Increased frequency of aneuploidy in long-lived spermatozoa. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e114600.

109. Drabovich AP, Saraon P, Jarvi K, Diamandis EP. Seminal plasma as a diagnostic fluid for male reproductive system disorders. Nat Rev Urol. 2014; 11:278–288.

110. Kwon WS, Rahman MS, Lee JS, Yoon SJ, Park YJ, Pang MG. Discovery of predictive biomarkers for litter size in boar spermatozoa. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015; 14:1230–1240.