Does menthol kill spermatozoa?

[SAZAR]

Does menthol kill spermatozoa or is it neutral... or maybe even helps it somehow?? (I don't know - I don't have a microscope, and Internet says nothing about it specifically so I ask)

Now - someone would say "Well - you know - it depends on concentration!" - so - here - for example: say you have a menthol tablet for sore throat say 160mg in weight, containing 2mg of menthol, 0.1mg of sodium usnat and sorbitol artificial sweetener - would it kill spermatozoa?

 

[Lievo]

would it kill spermatozoa?

I would expect the main effect is to increase survival because you would also put sugar. But you'll have to experiment if you want to know.

 

[SAZAR]

How come - haven't anyone tested it already? - I mean it is a substance too common not to have been tested on ALL sorts of things.
Doesn't it have bactericidal properties?
...

...Anyone have a microscope?

(I mean - to test it and present the results... not to lend me one :B )

 

[Proton Soup]

the only thing that shows up on pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705237/?tool=pubmed

does this mean it would increase or decrease fertility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrosome_reaction

 

[SAZAR]

Yea', I've found it too when I was first looking - but does it mean menthol opens a spermatozoon prematurely and thus destroy it or it makes it more ready to fuse with egg cell?

...Gee... how I would like to have a 1000x microscope...

 

[epenguin]

It would be risky to rely on it too much.

 

[SAZAR]

It would be risky to rely on it too much.

Back that claim with scientific analysis resulting from methodical testings.

 

[SAZAR]

(...I can't really believe that I still didn't get definite answer; why is it so hard to test it - surely someone (if not all) the people who read my thread have a microscope in their possession...)

 

[SAZAR]

Does ______ menthol ______ kill ______ spermatozoIDS?!

 

[Perfection]

(...I can't really believe that I still didn't get definite answer; why is it so hard to test it - surely someone (if not all) the people who read my thread have a microscope in their possession...)

Let's say we get some sperm, and then pour some menthol on it and it kills some. I would not say that's sufficient evidence to use it as an effective means of contraception.

 

[SAZAR]

Let's say we get some sperm, and then pour some menthol on it and it kills some.

Some? Or all?
What is the actual case?

 

[Proton Soup]

Does ______ menthol ______ kill ______ spermatozoIDS?!

are you asking for medical advice? you want to use this as some kind of contraceptive?

that's not a question people here can answer for you.

it's' not even a well-defined question. do you intend to inhale menthol in a cigarette, ingest it, or apply it topically? topically would seem to provide the most hilarious outcome. i doubt the young lady would allow you near her again.

but for the sake of discussion, why don't you just assume the answer is no.

 

[SAZAR]

are you asking for medical advice? you want to use this as some kind of contraceptive?

that's not a question people here can answer for you.

it's' not even a well-defined question. do you intend to inhale menthol in a cigarette, ingest it, or apply it topically? topically would seem to provide the most hilarious outcome. i doubt the young lady would allow you near her again.

but for the sake of discussion, why don't you just assume the answer is no.

... This is a forum which deals with science - it's obvious that my question is in such spirit - else why would I post it here -- your attitude is confusing; the question was and is perfectly simple -- I mean I don't get it why these subversions take place. -
Here: Imagine a lab and scientists in white lab coats who need to answer this question - they look through a microscope - they see spermatozoa wiggling and moving around - they add menthol-rich solution --- now: What happens? - That simple. That was and is my question.

How come this thread turned into something concerning practical issues? -- I couldn't quickly find that piece of information on the Internet (the simple straight-forward answer to the question "Does menthol kill spermatozoa?"), so I asked a question here - simple as that - I imagined it as a quick question with a quick answer - yet it mutated into some strange happening.

How 'funny' - I asked a quick question then and there expecting a quick and straight-forward answer something like 5 minutes after it, yet I STILL didn't get a definite answer.
I can assume that the answer is 'no' and that the answer is 'yes'... now where did I get?

 

[bobze]

... This is a forum which deals with science - it's obvious that my question is in such spirit - else why would I post it here -- your attitude is confusing; the question was and is perfectly simple -- I mean I don't get it why these subversions take place. -
Here: Imagine a lab and scientists in white lab coats who need to answer this question - they look through a microscope - they see spermatozoa wiggling and moving around - they add menthol-rich solution --- now: What happens? - That simple. That was and is my question.

How come this thread turned into something concerning practical issues? -- I couldn't quickly find that piece of information on the Internet (the simple straight-forward answer to the question "Does menthol kill spermatozoa?"), so I asked a question here - simple as that - I imagined it as a quick question with a quick answer - yet it mutated into some strange happening.

How 'funny' - I asked a quick question then and there expecting a quick and straight-forward answer something like 5 minutes after it, yet I STILL didn't get a definite answer.
I can assume that the answer is 'no' and that the answer is 'yes'... now where did I get?

Because you question is non-specific and not very scientific. You need to define the parameters you are looking to be answered and it would help if you added what the application you had in mind.

For example with your above scenario, what concentration of a solution? Biology 101: essentially anything is deadly in the right concentration and dose, even water.

How are you defining "killing"? Spermatazoa aren't free living organisms, do you mean does it make them non-motile? unable to achieve their function? In activates their mitochondria? Lyses them? Inactivates their protein machinery? Etc.

What about time? How long is the exposure? Etc.

See, you may have asked a simple question--but it is, without context, an essentially meaningless question.

 

[Proton Soup]

... This is a forum which deals with science - it's obvious that my question is in such spirit - else why would I post it here -- your attitude is confusing; the question was and is perfectly simple -- I mean I don't get it why these subversions take place. -
Here: Imagine a lab and scientists in white lab coats who need to answer this question - they look through a microscope - they see spermatozoa wiggling and moving around - they add menthol-rich solution --- now: What happens? - That simple. That was and is my question.

How come this thread turned into something concerning practical issues? -- I couldn't quickly find that piece of information on the Internet (the simple straight-forward answer to the question "Does menthol kill spermatozoa?"), so I asked a question here - simple as that - I imagined it as a quick question with a quick answer - yet it mutated into some strange happening.

How 'funny' - I asked a quick question then and there expecting a quick and straight-forward answer something like 5 minutes after it, yet I STILL didn't get a definite answer.
I can assume that the answer is 'no' and that the answer is 'yes'... now where did I get?

you've been pushy and rude. and as bobze points out, you don't ask a very well-defined question.

but let's say you actually bothered to read the paper i linked to earlier:

As TRPM8 was immunologically found uniformly distributed along the sperm flagella, we evaluated if menthol, the principal TRPM8 agonist, influenced the motility pattern of non-capacitated and capacitated sperm using a CASA system. Even at the highest menthol concentration used (1 mM) we did not observe significant changes in the main motility parameters of non-capacitated or capacitated sperm (Supplementary Figure S1). A more detailed analysis of the various motility parameters (flagellar curvature, bending angle, frequency of beating, chemoattraction, etc.) would be required to completely rule out TRPM8 participation on this sperm function.

so how do you feel about that answer?

 

[SAZAR]

It's very excerptive.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's very excerptive.

until someone gets interested enough to find out how much menthol it takes to kill spermatozoa, that's about as close as you can get, though. there, they're only interested in menthol's ability to activate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRPM8" , and in that dosage menthol does not appear to kill sperm.

well, and they're apparently interested in menthol initiating the acrosome reaction, which would render a certain percentage of the sperm sterile, even though they are not dead. so, maybe it reduces fertility, but you still haven't disclosed why you're interested in the question.

 

[SAZAR]

until someone gets interested enough -

...Someone must have already, it's too common substance not to...**

- to find out how much menthol it takes to kill spermatozoa, that's about as close as you can get, though. there, they're only interested in menthol's ability to activate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRPM8" , and in that dosage menthol does not appear to kill sperm.

well, and they're apparently interested in menthol initiating the acrosome reaction, which would render a certain percentage of the sperm sterile, even though they are not dead. so, maybe it reduces fertility,

As I said - that page is the only related information that I could find on my own in the first place, but I was confused - what is the meaning of it: would supposed menthol induced acrosome reaction destroy spermatozoas functionality (by destroying its "container" prematurely), or on the other hand just enhance the acrosome reaction so it more readily enters the egg...

but you still haven't disclosed why you're interested in the question.

My first motivation to wonder about this issue was amazement with the thought: wow, is it possible that contraception could be so easy - simply by using something that common as menthol; all those pharmaceutical acrobatics* around the issue of contraception yet the ultimate answer is so - easy.
Basically, sort of - a great WHAT IF moment... (plus a fact that there is no explicit answer to that question on the web (maybe pharmaceutic companies are worried that women would stop buying their complex products and start popping tic-tacs inside instead :B :P :D ))

____
* all the crazy things they invented (all of them with their down-sides (such as women getting facial hair when using pills))
** (I remember googleing-out when I first wondered about it (just prior to asking the question here) something about cErTaiN product of the liquid kind that contains menthol - but it doesn't say if menthol in it kills spermatozoa, just boasts its mInTy eFfECTs :P )

 

[Proton Soup]

it's certainly an interesting thought. if someone can come up with a male birth control pill that only shuts down fertility short-term, it might be popular with at least some men. i believe they tried it with supplemental testosterone once, but it has the rather dubious side effect of shutting down the testes and making them shrink. which is psychologically devastating, unless maybe you're a bodybuilder.

but the sperm would have to be inactivated nearly 100%, which if iirc from scanning the paper, menthol doesn't quite achieve. there's also the issue of those receptors being in other tissues, which probably means if you found the dosage that guaranteed sterility, the side-effects would make it unbearable. maybe they'll eventually find a unique pathway to manipulate.

 

[SAZAR]

it's certainly an interesting thought. if someone can come up with a male birth control pill that only shuts down fertility short-term,

Just by the way, to write it down, just for the sake of discussion: the original thought was - sort of an in situ** application, not ingestion - a direct contact of menthol with spermatozoa and in the first post I mentioned some ordinary common inconspicuous product as an example* for testing. The logic was: if you can ingest menthol (in a sense that you have it in mouth for long periods of time and it doesn't bother you nor damage the skin (what more - it heals it!)) that it wouldn't bother other mucous membranes either... that was the original thought.

___
* (quote: "say you have a menthol tablet for sore throat say 160mg in weight, containing 2mg of menthol, 0.1mg of sodium usnat and sorbitol artificial sweetener - would it kill spermatozoa? ")
** basically to 'stick it in' - I'm not so convinced that it would produce bad sensation as you suggested (to qoute you: "topically would seem to provide the most hilarious outcome.")

 

[MATLABdude]

I've heard of Saran Wrap condoms: could this pave the way for Listerine emergency contraceptive / douche?

(Listerine, owing to its high alcohol content, would actually probably kill sperm as effectively as it kills mouth bacteria--however, I'd trust neither of the above ersatz solutions).

 

[Proton Soup]

contraceptive douche used to be common, but not recommended because of the damage to normal flora

http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm

 

[SAZAR]

:D
Just to document it in this thread: I've just noticed on the internet that this very question of mine (see the beginning of this thread for reference) mysteriously popped-up here somehow:

Edit: removed link

I don't know who posted it there (but it would seem that more people are interested in the answer to this question).

Anyhow - the outcome on that thread is pretty much the same as here...

And while I'm here - just to remind you: the question was about whether or not putting a menthol tablet into vagina would efficiently serve as spermicide.
(it doesn't burn your mouth why would it bother any other mucus membrane tissue)

(The proposed method for testing this was to observe spermatozoa under microscope - put a piece of some menthol tablet in it and stir it to see if it kills spermatozoa efficiently enough.)

 

[atyy]

Menthol is among the substances tested in Baker's study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20475127. He grades sperm activity from 0 (no activity) to 3 (full activity). At a concentration of 1/16 %, guinea pig sperm activity was observed to be higher than 1, but less than 2.