C Bohring1, J Skrzypek, W Krause. 1. Department of Andrology, Clinical Training Center of the European Academy of Andrology, Dermatology of the Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany. bohring@mailer.uni-marburg.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of antisperm antibodies on the acrosome reaction (AR). DESIGN: Clinical study. SETTING: University of Marburg, Department of Andrology, Clinical Training Center of the European Academy of Andrology. PATIENT(S): Spermatozoa from a pool of healthy donors were incubated with 30 seminal plasma samples from infertile men containing antisperm antibodies; they were compared to a control group of 10 samples without antisperm antibodies and five samples with buffer only. INTERVENTION(S): The spontaneous acrosome reaction (SAR) and the induced acrosome reaction (IAR) by calcium ionophore A23187 were observed and determined by means of a flow cytometer. Flow cytometric double-staining estimates of acrosomal integrity were determined by using a monoclonal antibody (TUS 19), marked with a secondary fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled antibody. Cell viability was determined by counterstaining with propidium iodide (PI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Number of acrosome reacted spermatozoa. RESULT(S): The spermatozoa treated with antisperm antibodies showed significantly higher SAR and IAR responses than the control group. CONCLUSION(S): Some of the antisperm antibodies from individual patients are able to enhance the acrosome reaction in donor sperm, but none of them appeared to inhibit acrosome reaction.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of antisperm antibodies on the acrosome reaction (AR). DESIGN: Clinical study. SETTING: University of Marburg, Department of Andrology, Clinical Training Center of the European Academy of Andrology. PATIENT(S): Spermatozoa from a pool of healthy donors were incubated with 30 seminal plasma samples from infertile men containing antisperm antibodies; they were compared to a control group of 10 samples without antisperm antibodies and five samples with buffer only. INTERVENTION(S): The spontaneous acrosome reaction (SAR) and the induced acrosome reaction (IAR) by calcium ionophore A23187 were observed and determined by means of a flow cytometer. Flow cytometric double-staining estimates of acrosomal integrity were determined by using a monoclonal antibody (TUS 19), marked with a secondary fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled antibody. Cell viability was determined by counterstaining with propidium iodide (PI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Number of acrosome reacted spermatozoa. RESULT(S): The spermatozoa treated with antisperm antibodies showed significantly higher SAR and IAR responses than the control group. CONCLUSION(S): Some of the antisperm antibodies from individual patients are able to enhance the acrosome reaction in donor sperm, but none of them appeared to inhibit acrosome reaction.