Kyoko Shirota1, Fusanori Yotsumoto1, Hiroko Itoh1, Hirotsugu Obama1, Naomi Hidaka2, Kyoko Nakajima3, Shingo Miyamoto4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan. 2. IVF Nagata Clinic, Fukuoka, Japan. 3. Joint Laboratory for Frontier Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan. Electronic address: smiya@cis.fukuoka-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether microfluidic sperm sorters (MFSSs) allow effective recovery of sorted motile sperm without DNA damage compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. DESIGN: Experimental laboratory study. All participants completed questionnaires regarding previous and/or current diseases, surgery, reproductive experiences, lifestyle factors, and date of the preceding ejaculation. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENT(S): Male volunteers were recruited without setting conditions. Semen samples from healthy volunteers (n = 37) were collected in sterile containers by masturbation. INTERVENTION(S): Flow cytometric measurement and sperm chromatin structure assay analysis of DNA damage after sperm preparation using MFSS and the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Efficacy and efficiency of sperm preparation, correlation between sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) and semen parameters, and relationship between basic characteristics and DFI after the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. RESULT(S): Final sperm concentration and motility were significantly different between the centrifugation and swim-up procedure and MFSS sperm preparations. A significantly lower sperm DNA fragmentation rate was detected with MFSS compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure use. No correlation was observed between DFI and smoking or drinking, but significant correlations were observed between DFI and medication use and sexual abstinence duration. CONCLUSION(S): MFSSs can be used to efficiently and reliably prepare sperm compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. Further research on the clinical use of MFSSs is required to evaluate the safety and usefulness of this device.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether microfluidic sperm sorters (MFSSs) allow effective recovery of sorted motile sperm without DNA damage compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. DESIGN: Experimental laboratory study. All participants completed questionnaires regarding previous and/or current diseases, surgery, reproductive experiences, lifestyle factors, and date of the preceding ejaculation. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENT(S): Male volunteers were recruited without setting conditions. Semen samples from healthy volunteers (n = 37) were collected in sterile containers by masturbation. INTERVENTION(S): Flow cytometric measurement and sperm chromatin structure assay analysis of DNA damage after sperm preparation using MFSS and the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Efficacy and efficiency of sperm preparation, correlation between sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) and semen parameters, and relationship between basic characteristics and DFI after the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. RESULT(S): Final sperm concentration and motility were significantly different between the centrifugation and swim-up procedure and MFSS sperm preparations. A significantly lower sperm DNA fragmentation rate was detected with MFSS compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure use. No correlation was observed between DFI and smoking or drinking, but significant correlations were observed between DFI and medication use and sexual abstinence duration. CONCLUSION(S): MFSSs can be used to efficiently and reliably prepare sperm compared with the centrifugation and swim-up procedure. Further research on the clinical use of MFSSs is required to evaluate the safety and usefulness of this device.
Authors: Hamilton De Martin; Marcello S Cocuzza; Bruno C Tiseo; Guilherme J A Wood; Eduardo P Miranda; Pedro A A Monteleone; José Maria Soares; Paulo C Serafini; Miguel Srougi; Edmund C Baracat Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Reza Nosrati; Percival J Graham; Biao Zhang; Jason Riordon; Alexander Lagunov; Thomas G Hannam; Carlos Escobedo; Keith Jarvi; David Sinton Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Erica T Y Leung; Cheuk-Lun Lee; Xinyi Tian; Kevin K W Lam; Raymond H W Li; Ernest H Y Ng; William S B Yeung; Philip C N Chiu Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Thiruppathiraja Chinnasamy; James L Kingsley; Fatih Inci; Paul J Turek; Mitchell P Rosen; Barry Behr; Erkan Tüzel; Utkan Demirci Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 16.806