Difference in sperm head volume as a theoretical basis for sorting X- and Y-bearing spermatozoa: potentials and limitations.

Volume-based sorting of X- and Y-chromosome-bearing sperm cells could be an interesting alternative to the existing technique based on DNA content. Advantages would be that DNA staining and ultraviolet excitation, used in the existing technique, could be avoided. To assess the possibilities and limitations of sperm-head volume as sorting criterion, achievable purity and yield are determined for bull sperm. Two important parameters in this respect are the magnitude of the volume difference and the biological variation within each (X or Y) population. Earlier, we established a difference in volume matching the difference in DNA content (3.8%) between X- and Y-bearing bull sperm heads by comparing thicknesses and areas of high numbers of pre-sorted X- and Y-bearing bull sperm heads by interference microscopy and subsequent image analysis. Unfortunately, despite the high number of measurements, a direct determination of biological variations was not possible due to an unknown contribution of instrumental variations. In this paper, we determine the contribution of instrumental errors by measuring a single sperm head, varying parameters such as location in the image, orientation angle, focusing etc., simulating the behavior of the measuring system. After correction, both for the instrumental variation, and for the fact that the original samples were not pure, biological variations in volume of 5.9 +/- 0.8% were found. Our results indicate that when 10% of the bull sperm are sorted on basis of their head volume, a theoretical enrichment of 80% could be achieved. Expected purity and yield are lower than what is standard for the existing technique. At the moment, a technique to physically separate X- and Y-bearing sperm cells based on volume is not available. However, for applications for which the potential hazards of DNA staining and UV excitation are problematic, the development of such technique should be considered.

[1]  J. P. Flook,et al.  Flow cytometry of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm for DNA using an improved preparation method and staining with Hoechst 33342. , 1987, Gamete research.

[2]  W. Rens,et al.  Improved flow cytometric sorting of X‐ and Y‐chromosome bearing sperm: Substantial increase in yield of sexed semen , 1999 .

[3]  Van Munster,et al.  Measurement‐based evaluation of optical pathlength distributions reconstructed from simulated differential interference contrast images , 1998, Journal of microscopy.

[4]  L. Johnson,et al.  Flow cytometric sorting of sperm: Influence on fertilization and embryo/fetal development in the rabbit , 1996, Molecular reproduction and development.

[5]  A. L. Koch,et al.  Deduction of the cell volume and mass from forward scatter intensity of bacteria analyzed by flow cytometry , 1996 .

[6]  L. Johnson.  Gender Preselection in Domestic Animals Using Flow Cytometrically Sorted Sperm , 1992 .

[7]  U. Hegde,et al.  Use of Ficoll–sodium metrizoate density gradient to separate human X- and Y-bearing spermatozoa , 1977, Nature.

[8]  J. Aten,et al.  Effect of flow cytometrically sorted frozen/thawed semen on success rate of in vitro bovine embryo production , 1997 .

[9]  M. Nishino,et al.  Isolation of Fractions rich in Human Y Sperm , 1973, Nature.

[10]  D. G. Cran,et al.  Recent advances in sex preselection of cattle: Flow cytometric sorting of X- & Y-chromosome bearing sperm based on dna to produce progeny , 1994 .

[11]  C. Polge,et al.  Production of bovine calves following separation of X- and Y-chromosome bearing sperm and in vitro fertilisation , 1993, Veterinary Record.

[12]  J. Schulman,et al.  The safety of sperm selection by flow cytometry. , 1994, Human reproduction.

[13]  L. Johnson,et al.  Sex preselection in rabbits: live births from X and Y sperm separated by DNA and cell sorting. , 1989, Biology of reproduction.

[14]  G. Seidel,et al.  Prospects for sexing mammalian sperm , 1982 .

[15]  G. Kantor.  EFFECTS OF UV, SUNLIGHT AND X‐RAY RADIATION ON QUIESCENT HUMAN CELLS IN CULTURE , 1986, Photochemistry and photobiology.

[16]  Donald L. Snyder,et al.  Determination of direction-independent optical path length distribution of cells using rotational-diversity transmitted-light differential-interference-contrast (DIC) images , 1998, Photonics West - Biomedical Optics.

[17]  E. Schilling.  Experiments in sedimentation and centrifugation of bull spermatozoa and the sex ratio of born calves. , 1966, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[18]  G. Evans,et al.  Sex predetermination by separation of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm: a review. , 1993, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[19]  Lucas J. van Vliet,et al.  Quantitative interferometric imaging using a conventional differential interference contrast microscope , 1997, Photonics West - Biomedical Optics.

[20]  E. V. van Munster,et al.  Difference in volume of X- and Y-chromosome-bearing bovine sperm heads matches difference in DNA content. , 1999, Cytometry.

[21]  D Pinkel,et al.  Flow sorting of X and Y chromosome-bearing spermatozoa into two populations. , 1987, Gamete research.

[22]  L. Johnson.  Sex Preselection in Swine: Altered Sex Ratios in Offspring following Surgical Insemination of Flow Sorted X‐ and Y‐Bearing Sperm , 1991 .

[23]  J. Aten,et al.  Improving the resolution of cryopreserved X- and Y-sperm during DNA flow cytometric analysis with the addition of Percoll to quench the fluorescence of dead sperm. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[24]  M. Ashwood‐Smith.  Human sperm sex selection. Safety of human sperm selection by flow cytometry. , 1994, Human reproduction.

[25]  L. V. van Vliet,et al.  Reconstruction of optical pathlength distributions from images obtained by a wide‐field differential interference contrast microscope , 1997, Journal of microscopy.

[26]  L. Shettles.  Separation of X and Y spermatozoa. , 1976, The Journal of urology.