| Literature DB >> 29072049 |
Carlos Duarte1, Víctor Núñez1, Yat Wong1,2, Carlos Vivar1, Elder Benites1, Urso Rodriguez1, Carlos Vergara1, Jorge Ponce1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In assisted reproduction procedures, we need to develop and enhance new protocols to optimize sperm selection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of the Z potential technique to select sperm with intact DNA in non-normospermic patients and evaluate the impact of this selection on embryonic development. <br> METHODS: We analyzed a total of 174 human seminal samples with at least one altered parameter. We measured basal, post density gradients, and post density gradients + Z potential DNA fragmentation index. To evaluate the impact of this technique on embryo development, 54 cases were selected. The embryo development parameters evaluated were fertilization rate, cleavage rate, top quality embryos at the third day and blastocysts rate. <br> RESULTS: We found significant differences in the study groups when we compared the sperm fragmentation index by adding the Z potential technique to density gradient selection vs. density gradients alone. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the embryo development parameters between the low sperm fragmentation index group vs. the moderate and high sperm fragmentation index groups, when selecting sperms with this new technique. <br> CONCLUSIONS: The Z potential technique is a very useful tool for sperm selection; it significantly reduces the DNA fragmentation index and improves the parameters of embryo development. This technique could be considered routine for its simplicity and low cost.Entities:
Keywords: Z potential; embryo development; sperm DNA fragmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29072049 PMCID: PMC5714604 DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod ISSN: 1517-5693
Average sperm DNA fragmentation index.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basal DFI (%) | 10.2±4.1 | 20.4±2.4 | 33±1.4 |
| Post DGC DFI (%) | 4.1±1.3 | 9.2±1.2 | 15±2.4 |
| Post DGC+ PZ DFI (%) | 1.2±0.3 | 3.1±1.7 | 5±2.3 |
DFI reduction comparison between DGC and DGC + PZ.
| Grupo A | Grupo B | Grupo C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DFI Red. DGC (%) | 63.91±5.7 | 57.48±9.4 | 53.82±13.99 |
| DFI Red. DGC + PZ (%) | 83.2±3.1 | 83.94±7.4 | 83.48±8.1 |
Indicates significant difference where p<0.05.
Comparison of the DFI reduction between DGC and DGC + PZ.
| Comparison of the DFI reduction between DGC and DGC + PZ | |
|---|---|
| Groups | ∆ Red. DFI (%) |
| Group A (n=88) | 19.31±15.23 |
| Group B (n=59) | 26.24±9.9 |
| Group C (n=27) | 29.66±9.05 |
Indicates significant difference where p<0.05;
Indicates no significant difference where p>0.05.
Embryo development parameters.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fertilization Rate (%FR) | 80.31±4.01 | 78.73±4.40 | 0.82 |
| Cleavage Rate (%CR) | 89.52±4.58 | 89.44±3.38 | 0.97 |
| Top Quality Embryos (%TQE) | 83.55±9.68 | 90.07±2.40 | 0.29 |
| Blastocyst Rate (%BR) | 58.48±4.08 | 61.68±4.48 | 0.096 |