Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (4): 658-662. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.04.012

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Seasonal variations influenced the semen quality of the sperm donor in Beijing area

Wen-hao TANG1,Chen-yao DENG1,Jiang-man GAO2,Zhi-chao LUO1,Han WU1,Sen-lin TIAN2,Nan WEI2,Bin Li2,Qian-cheng ZHAO2,Jian-fei SONG2,Liang ZHANG2,Lu-lin MA1,Hui JIANG1,*()   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
    2. Department of Reproductive Medicine Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2022-04-07 Online:2022-08-18 Published:2022-08-11
  • Contact: Hui JIANG E-mail:jianghui@bjmu.edu.cn

RICH HTML

 13   

PDF (PC)

195

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the change trends of sperm quality with seasonal variations among the volunteers of sperm donors in Beijing area, as well as the relationship between two parameters. Methods: Semen data from the volunteers of sperm donors in Human Sperm Bank of Peking University Third Hospital were collected using a retrospective study method. The subjects were divided into 4 seasonal groups based on the lunar solar terms and the time of sperm donation. The data were assessed to find whether there were differences in semen parameters among different seasonal groups, and to analyze the change trends and the influence of seasonal factors on semen parameters. Results: A total of 21 174 semen parameter data were analyzed. Firstly, to analyze all data as a whole, in spring, summer, autumn and winter groups, sperm concentration was (106.04±59.67)×106/mL, (97.61±47.41)×106/mL, (100.18±47.17)×106/mL, (100.59±38.68)×106/mL, respectively, and the spring group was significantly higher than the other 3 seasonal groups (P < 0.001); proportion of progressive motility sperm (PR) was 56.49%±12.76%, 58.02%±13.65%, 58.05%±12.36%, and 57.66%±12.61%, respectively, spring group was lower than the other three seasonal groups, and summer group was better among the latter (P < 0.001). There was no difference in normal rate of sperm morphology among the four seasonal groups. The qualified rate of sperm donors in the winter group was higher than that in the other three seasons groups (P < 0.01), while the qualified rate in the summer group was lower than that in the other three seasons groups. In addition, the semen parameters of the volunteers during the screening period and the official sperm donation period were analyzed respectively, which revealed that sperm concentration of spring group was higher than that of summer and winter groups, and PR was lower than that of summer and autumn groups. On account of the semen parameters of official sperm donation period, multiple linear regression analysis found that season was the main factor affecting sperm concentration, the average sperm concentration in spring group was about 6×106/mL higher than in winter group, but PR was 2.9% lower in spring group compared with autumn group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Season was the influencing factor of semen quality of sperm donors in Beijing area. We recommend spring and winter may be the preferred seasons for sperm donation.

Key words: Seasons, Sperm count, Sperm motility, Sperm donors, Semen quality

CLC Number: 

  • R446.19

Table 1

Comparison on semen parameters of all sperm donors and the qualified rate of sperm donors in different seasons (n=21 174)"

Seasons Semen volume/mL Sperm concentration/(×106/mL) PR/% TCPM/(×108)
Spring (n=4 791) 3.03±1.44a 106.04±59.67b 56.49±12.76c 1.77±1.27d
Summer (n=5 105) 2.97±1.38 97.61±47.41 58.02±13.65 1.66±1.11
Autumn (n=6 695) 2.97±1.39 100.18±47.17 58.05±12.36 1.68±1.07
Winter (n=4 583) 2.90±1.36 100.59±38.68 57.66±12.61 1.64±0.96
Seasons IM/% Sperm morphology (normal forms, %) Liquefaction time/min Qualification rate of donors
Spring (n=4 791) 35.63±15.23e 13.68±3.37 14.65±4.05 18.35%
Summer (n=5 105) 37.24±13.84 13.94±9.28 14.72±3.92 15.43%g
Autumn (n=6 695) 37.64±12.30 13.81±5.12 14.57±4.26 19.99%
Winter (n=4 583) 38.15±11.55 14.13±4.27 14.39±4.09 28.45%f

Table 2

Comparison on semen parameters of donors during screening periods in different seasons (n=9 918)"

Seasons Semen volume/mL Sperm concentration/(×106/mL) PR/% TCPM/(×108) IM/% Liquefaction time/min
Spring (n=2 228) 3.18±1.59a 93.4±59.24b 51.82±14.54a 1.55±1.34b 40.37±17.07 14.59±4.13
Summer (n=2 941) 2.97±1.48 89.83±49.75 54.97±15.16 1.46±1.11 40.26±15.32 14.95±4.03
Autumn (n=3 286) 3.08±1.52 84.94±47.35 53.76±13.99 1.37±1.04 41.83±13.97 14.62±4.34
Winter (n=1 463) 3.13±1.56 83.47±41.07 51.62±13.92 1.31±0.91 44.39±14.05c 14.62±4.17

Table 3

Comparison on semen parameters of donors during the official sperm donation period in different seasons (n=11 256)"

Seasons Semen volume/mL Sperm concentration/(×106/mL) PR/% TCPM/(×108) IM/% Liquefaction time/min
Spring (n=2 563) 2.91±1.28a 117.02±57.86b 60.54±9.25c 1.99±1.20 31.50±12.00 14.70±3.98
Summer (n=2 164) 2.97±1.23 108.18±41.79 62.17±9.87 1.95±1.05 33.15±10.19 14.40±3.74
Autumn (n=3 409) 2.86±1.25 114.88±42.06 62.17±8.74 1.97±1.03 33.59±8.71 14.51±4.19
Winter (n=3 120) 2.80±1.25 108.62±34.73 60.88±8.69 1.79±0.94d 35.23±8.75e 14.55±4.10

Table 4

Comparison on semen parameters of all sperm donors in different months of spring"

Months Semen volume/mL Sperm concentration/(×106/mL) PR/% TCPM/(×108) IM/% Liquefaction time/min
March (n=2 139) 3.01±1.43 111.30±65.22 56.68±12.66 1.87±1.40 34.56±15.78 15.35±4.62c
April (n=1 545) 3.04±1.43 108.90±61.75 55.78±13.37 1.81±1.30 35.21±15.97 14.18±3.24
May (n=1 107) 3.07±1.45 92.05±39.78a 57.20±11.78a 1.58±0.97b 38.21±12.32a 13.94±3.78
1 李昕, 李豫, 邵骏, 等. 中国有生育力男性精子浓度35年变化趋势分析[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2021, 27 (7): 645- 648.
2 杨静薇, 黄学锋, 王增军, 等. Csrm数据报告: 2008—2018年中国健康男性精液质量变化分析[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2020, 29 (1): 1- 6.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3845.2020.01.001
3 Bisconti M , Simon JF , Grassi S , et al. Influence of risk factors for male infertility on sperm protein composition[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22 (23): 13164.
doi: 10.3390/ijms222313164
4 Chen Z , Godfrey-Bailey L , Schiff I , et al. Impact of seasonal variation, age and smoking status on human semen parameters: The Massachusetts General Hospital experience[J]. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod, 2004, 1 (1): 2.
doi: 10.1186/1743-1050-1-2
5 Xie M , Utzinger KS , Blickenstorfer K , et al. Diurnal and seasonal changes in semen quality of men in subfertile partnerships[J]. Chronobiol Int, 2018, 35 (10): 1375- 1384.
doi: 10.1080/07420528.2018.1483942
6 舒金辉, 吴柱连, 李学余, 等. 广西地区男性精液质量与季节因素的关系分析[J]. 中国卫生检验杂志, 2016, 26 (16): 2386- 2387.
7 Mao H , Feng L , Yang WX . Environmental factors contributed to circannual rhythm of semen quality[J]. Chronobiol Int, 2017, 34 (3): 411- 425.
8 W HO . WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen[M]. 5th ed Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press, 2010.
9 Martinez G , Garcia C . Sexual selection and sperm diversity in primates[J]. Mol Cell Endocrinol, 2020, 518, 110974.
10 罗璐璐, 张欣宗, 庄嘉明, 等. 广东地区不同季节供精者精液参数变化分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34 (8): 1133- 1135.
11 张欣宗, 姚康寿. 季节因素对供精志愿者精液冷冻前后相关参数的影响[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2010, 16 (7): 619- 622.
12 王慧芳, 袁亚男, 王静, 等. 以线性模型分析季节对不育男性精液质量的影响[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2020, 20 (22): 3742- 3743.
13 刘巧斌, 程玲, 叶圆圆, 等. 男性不育患者精液质量及其影响因素分析[J]. 吉林大学学报(医学版), 2022, 48 (2): 470- 477.
14 雷洪恩, 韩虎, 张小东, 等. 影响北京地区11 973份精液标本质量的多因素分析[J]. 中国性科学, 2022, 31 (4): 1- 6.
15 De Giorgi A , Volpi R , Tiseo R , et al. Seasonal variation of human semen parameters: A retrospective study in Italy[J]. Chronobiol Int, 2015, 32 (5): 711- 716.
16 Ozelci R , Yılmaz S , Dilbaz B , et al. Seasonal variation of human sperm cells among 4 422 semen samples: A retrospective study in turkey[J]. Syst Biol Reprod Med, 2016, 62 (6): 379- 386.
17 杨东, 鲜红, 腾文顶, 等. 精液质量与季节关系探讨[J]. 四川医学, 2010, 31 (8): 1098- 1099.
18 童玉芬, 刘爱华. 首都圈流动人口空间分布特征及政策启示[J]. 北京行政学院学报, 2017, (6): 103- 110.
19 Shahat AM , Rizzoto G , Kastelic JP . Amelioration of heat stress-induced damage to testes and sperm quality[J]. Theriogenology, 2020, 158, 84- 96.
20 沈广戈. 影响种公猪精液质量因素的研究[J]. 猪业科学, 2015, 32 (2): 106- 108.
21 李培飞. 冬夏季猪精液质量特性及蛋白组学的比较分析[D]. 上海: 上海交通大学, 2019.
22 马春杰, 庄嘉明, 李倩仪, 等. 广东地区供精者精液冷冻复苏率季节变化分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2020, 36 (9): 1278- 1280.
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(4): 476 -479 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2003, 35(3): 274 -276 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 565 -570 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(6): 734 -738 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2005, 37(5): 489 -493 .
[6] MU Da-Wei, HE Zhi-Song, YU Wei, SONG Yi, LI Xue-Song, ZHOU Li-Qun, JIN Jie, LI Shu-Qing, SHAN Gang-Zhi, YANG Xin-Yu, HE Qun-. [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2012, 44(4): 568 -570 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2013, 45(03): 417 -421 .
[8] HUANG Hao, HAN Yong, WU Jian, TIAN Zhi-Hua, QU Li-Ke, SHOU Cheng-Chao. Establishment of drug resistant cell line of MGC-803 and analysis of differential secretome[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(2): 183 -189 .
[9] LUAN Jing-Yuan, LI Xuan, XIANG Yong, FU Jun, WANG Chang-Ming, LI Tian-Run, HAN Jin-Tao. Prognosis of embolization of internal iliac artery during the endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(6): 917 -919 .
[10] YANG Bo, HU Hao, WANG Jia, XU Tao, HUANG Xiao-Bo, WANG Xiao-Feng. Percutaneous “sandwich”endopyeloplasty technique: a new endourological measure for ureteropelvic junction obstruction[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 634 -637 .
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd