Literature DB >> 11737417

Comparison of sperm preparation methods: effect on chromatin and morphology recovery rates and their consequences on the clinical outcome after in vitro fertilization embryo transfer.

M E Hammadeh1, A Kühnen, A S Amer, P Rosenbaum, W Schmidt.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of swim-up, PureSperm gradient centrifugation and glass-wool filtration methods for semen preparation and to assess the possible enhancement of the quality of the subpopulation of spermatozoa in terms of sperm concentration, morphology and chromatin condensation. Moreover, to determine the effect of this semen processing technique on the clinical outcome after in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF-ET). A total of 180 semen samples of patients' husbands who were undergoing IVF therapy were prepared by swim-up (G1, n = 60), PureSperm gradient centrifugation (G2, n=60) or glass-wool (G3, n=60) methods. Chromatin condensation was assessed by Chromomycin (CMA3), whereas sperm morphology was evaluated according to strict criteria. In all three semen processing methods, the percentage of chromatin condensed and morphologically normal spermatozoa was higher after semen processing in comparison with native semen samples. The proportion of normal chromatin condensed spermatozoa prepared in glass-wool filtration was significantly higher than that in swim-up (G.I, p=0.02) or PureSperm (G.II, p=0.001). In addition semen processing with PureSperm yields significantly a higher percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa than swim-up (p < 0.001) or glass-wool method (p < 0.002). However, the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates, in turn were similar in all semen preparation methods. In conclusion, PureSperm gradient centrifugation yields a higher percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa than shown in traditional swim-up or glass-wool filtration. However, the percentage of chromatin condensed spermatozoa was significantly higher after semen processing via glass-wool in comparison with the other two methods. Nevertheless, there were no significant difference in the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates of sperm prepared by means of swim-up, PureSperm or glass-wool filtration. Therefore, glass-wool filtration should be recommended as the first choice for semen preparation for Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) technique as the natural selection is bypassed. Whereas, swim-up and PureSperm should be used for semen processing in IVF programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11737417     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2605.2001.0317a.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Androl        ISSN: 0105-6263


  14 in total

1.  The ability of sperm selection techniques to remove single- or double-strand DNA damage.

Authors:  María Enciso; Miriam Iglesias; Isabel Galán; Jonás Sarasa; Antonio Gosálvez; Jaime Gosálvez
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients.

Authors:  Xia Xue; Wan-Shan Wang; Juan-Zi Shi; Si-Lin Zhang; Wan-Qiu Zhao; Wen-Hao Shi; Bao-Zhu Guo; Zhen Qin
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Combination of swim-up and density gradient separation methods effectively eliminate DNA damaged sperm.

Authors:  Surveen Ghumman; Satish Kumar Adiga; Dinesh Upadhya; Guruprasad Kalthur; Varshini Jayaraman; Satish Bola Rao; Pratap Kumar
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2011-09-01

Review 4.  Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination.

Authors:  Carolien M Boomsma; Ben J Cohlen; Cindy Farquhar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-15

Review 5.  Iatrogenic genetic damage of spermatozoa.

Authors:  Cristian O'Flaherty
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Relationship between nuclear chromatin decondensation (NCD) in vitro and other sperm parameters and their predictive value on fertilization rate in IVF program.

Authors:  Mohamed E Hammadeh; Alexandra Bernardi; Theodosia Zeginiadou; Ahmed Amer; Werner Schmidt
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Comparative proteomic analysis of spermatozoa isolated by swim-up or density gradient centrifugation.

Authors:  Stefania Luppi; Monica Martinelli; Elisa Giacomini; Elena Giolo; Gabriella Zito; Rodolfo C Garcia; Giuseppe Ricci
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 5.211

8.  The quality of sperm preparation medium affects the motility, viability, and DNA integrity of human spermatozoa.

Authors:  Fatemeh Anbari; Iman Halvaei; Ali Nabi; Shahin Ghazali; Mohammad Ali Khalili; Lars Johansson
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

Review 9.  Sperm preparation for ART.

Authors:  Ralf R Henkel; Wolf-Bernhard Schill
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 5.211

10.  Assessment of chromatin maturity in human spermatozoa: useful aniline blue assay for routine diagnosis of male infertility.

Authors:  Afifa Sellami; Nozha Chakroun; Soumaya Ben Zarrouk; Hanen Sellami; Sahbi Kebaili; Tarek Rebai; Leila Keskes
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2013-10-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.