Validation study demonstrates high-accuracy single-cell motility tracking across mammalian sperm, highlighting an open-source alternative to conventional CASA.
Sperm motility is a key determinant of cell function, and it is critical for male fertility. In the analysis of human semen, motility is routinely assessed using manual evaluation or computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA). However, these approaches provide limited access to single-cell dynamics, use proprietary software, and rely on population- and time-averaged descriptors of sperm motion that can obscure both the intrinsic heterogeneity and the dynamic behaviors within individual trajectories. Here, we present an open-source, modular framework for automated sperm detection and tracking that enables trajectory-resolved quantification across species. The pipeline combines deep learning-based sperm head segmentation using species-specific Cellpose models with automated tracking via Trackpy or Trackmate, enabling reconstruction of individual sperm trajectories from time-lapse microscopy. This workflow was applied across four species, human, mouse, rat, and bovine. In human sperm, it was further tested under both basal and hyperactivation-promoting conditions. Detection performance was consistently high across species, with F1 scores, a metric that measures model accuracy, between 0.96 and 0.98 on independent validation datasets. From the obtained trajectories, CASA-like parameters, such as curvilinear velocity (VCL), straight-line velocity (VSL), and amplitude of lateral head displacement (ALH), were computed, showing strong agreement in human sperm with conventional CASA. An automated Python-based software for sperm tracking was designed to facilitate access to the technology. Overall, this framework provides a transparent and flexible alternative to CASA, enabling high-resolution, single-cell analysis of heterogeneous sperm motility and offering new opportunities to study sperm function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ameijeiras et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: