Literature DB >> 30007319

Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples.

Molly M Quinn1, Liza Jalalian1, Salustiano Ribeiro1, Katherine Ona1, Utkan Demirci2, Marcelle I Cedars1, Mitchell P Rosen1.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Does microfluidic sorting improve the selection of sperm with lower DNA fragmentation over standard density-gradient centrifugation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Microfluidic sorting of unprocessed semen allows for the selection of clinically usable, highly motile sperm with nearly undetectable levels of DNA fragmentation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Microfluidic devices have been explored to sort motile and morphologically normal sperm from a raw sample without centrifugation; however, it is uncertain whether DNA damage is reduced in this process. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a blinded, controlled laboratory study of differences in standard semen analysis parameters and the DNA fragmentation index (DFI) in split samples from infertile men (n = 70) that were discarded after routine semen analysis at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Sperm concentration, progressive motility and forward progression were assessed by microscopic examination. For each sample, the unprocessed semen was tested for DNA fragmentation and split for processing by density-gradient centrifugation with swim-up or sorting by a microfluidic chip. DNA fragmentation was assessed in unprocessed and processed samples by sperm chromatin dispersion assay. The DFI was calculated, from up to 300 cells per slide, as the number of cells with fragmented DNA divided by the number of cells counted per slide. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median DFI in unprocessed samples was 21% (interquartile range (IQR): 14-30). In paired analyses of all samples, those processed by the microfluidic chip demonstrated significantly decreased DFI compared to those processed by density-gradient centrifugation (P = 0.0029) and unprocessed samples (P < 0.0001). The median DFI for chip specimens was 0% (IQR: 0-2.4) while those processed by density-gradient centrifugation had a median DFI of 6% (IQR: 2-11). Unprocessed samples in the highest DFI quartile (DFI range: 31-40%) had a median DFI of 15% (IQR: 11-19%) after density-gradient centrifugation and DFI of 0% (IQR: 0-1.9%) after processing with the microfluidic chip (P = 0.02). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: While a high DFI has been associated with poor outcomes with IVF/ICSI, there are limited data illustrating improvements in clinical outcomes with a reduction in DFI. As this study utilized discarded, non-clinical samples, clinical outcomes data are not available. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: While microfluidic sorting of unprocessed semen allowed for the selection of clinically usable, highly motile sperm with nearly undetectable levels of DNA fragmentation, standard processing by density-gradient centrifugation with swim-up did not increase DNA fragmentation in an infertile population. The proposed microfluidic technology offers a flow-free approach to sort sperm, requiring no peripheral equipment or filtration step, while minimizing hands-on time. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding to declare. Utkan Demirci, PhD is the Co-founder and Scientific Advisor for DxNow Inc., LevitasBio Inc. and Koek Biotech. Mitchell Rosen, MD is a member of the Clinical Advisory Board for DxNow Inc.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA fragmentation; density-gradient centrifugation; microfluidics; sperm; swim-up

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30007319     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  25 in total

1.  Density gradient centrifugation and swim-up for ICSI: useful, unsafe, or just unsuitable?

Authors:  Hamilton De Martin; Eduardo P Miranda; Marcello S Cocuzza; Pedro A A Monteleone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Use of microfluidic sperm extraction chips as an alternative method in patients with recurrent in vitro fertilisation failure.

Authors:  Koray Yildiz; Sengul Yuksel
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Simulating nature in sperm selection for assisted reproduction.

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

4.  Does Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Affect Embryo Euploidy Rates in Couples with High Sperm DNA Fragmentation?

Authors:  Müge Keskin; Emre Göksan Pabuçcu; Tufan Arslanca; Özgür Doğuş Demirkıran; Recai Pabuçcu
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 3.060

5.  Separation of motile human sperms in a T-shaped sealed microchannel.

Authors:  Nikhil S Mane; Dhiraj B Puri; Sanjay Mane; Vadiraj Hemadri; Arnab Banerjee; Siddhartha Tripathi
Journal:  Biomed Eng Lett       Date:  2022-05-14

Review 6.  Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.

Authors:  Kadrina Abdul Latif Abdullah; Tomiris Atazhanova; Alejandro Chavez-Badiola; Sourima Biswas Shivhare
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Microfluidic chips as a method for sperm selection improve fertilization rate in couples with fertilization failure.

Authors:  Jamileh Sadat Mirsanei; Nadia Sheibak; Zahra Zandieh; Mehdi Mehdizadeh; Reza Aflatoonian; Maryamsadat Tabatabaei; Atieh Sadat Mousavi; Fatemehsadat Amjadi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Embryologic outcomes among patients using a microfluidics chip compared to density gradient centrifugation to process sperm: a paired analysis.

Authors:  Prachi Godiwala; Emilse Almanza; Jane Kwieraga; Reeva Makhijani; Daniel Grow; John Nulsen; Claudio Benadiva; Alison Bartolucci; Lawrence Engmann
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.357

9.  Sperm selection during ICSI treatments reduces single- but not double-strand DNA break values compared to the semen sample.

Authors:  Sandra Lara-Cerrillo; Jordi Ribas-Maynou; Candela Rosado-Iglesias; Tania Lacruz-Ruiz; Jordi Benet; Agustín García-Peiró
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 10.  The Use of Testicular Sperm for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Patients with High Sperm DNA Damage: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rafael F Ambar; Ashok Agarwal; Ahmad Majzoub; Sarah Vij; Nicholas N Tadros; Chak Lam Cho; Neel Parekh; Edson Borges; Sidney Glina
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 5.400

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.