Literature DB >> 34731459

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

Müge Keskin1, Emre Göksan Pabuçcu2, Tufan Arslanca2, Özgür Doğuş Demirkıran3, Recai Pabuçcu2.   

Abstract

Male infertility contributes as the main factor in 30-50% of infertility cases. Conventional methods for sperm preparation have induced questioning of sperm recovery rates. The microfluidic sperm sorting (MSS) technique selects highly motile sperm with lower levels of SDF (sperm DNA fragmentation) compared to conventional sperm sorting techniques. This study aimed to determine whether utilizing this technique will reveal better embryo quality and euploidy rates in couples with repeated implantation failure (RIF) and high SDF in a new PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies) cycle. This retrospective study included couples referred to PGT-A for previous repeated ART (assisted reproductive techniques) cycle failures and with high SDF. In their new cycles, couples who accepted the technique were assigned to the MSS group, and the rest were managed with DGC (density-gradient centrifugation). Two groups were compared in terms of fertilization and euploidy rates, clinical miscarriage and live birth rates, the total number of blastocysts, and top quality blastocysts. There was no difference between the groups regarding fertilization rates, euploidy rates, clinical miscarriage, and live birth rates. The total number of blastocysts and top quality blastocysts were significantly higher in the MSS group. The MSS technique provides a higher number of top-quality blastocysts than DGC; however, neither euploidy nor live birth rates improved. Studies focusing on confounding factors to embryonic genomic status in the presence of high SDF are needed.
© 2021. Society for Reproductive Investigation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Microfluidic sperm sorting (MSS); Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A); Repeated implantation failure (RIF); Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF)

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34731459     DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00784-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Sci        ISSN: 1933-7191            Impact factor:   3.060


  47 in total

Review 1.  The science of ART.

Authors:  Richard M Schultz; Carmen J Williams
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Comparative auto-controlled study between swim-up and Percoll preparation of fresh semen samples for in-vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Y Englert; M Van den Bergh; C Rodesch; E Bertrand; J Biramane; A Legreve
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Microfluidics for sperm research.

Authors:  Stephanie M Knowlton; Magesh Sadasivam; Savas Tasoglu
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 19.536

Review 4.  Thinking big by thinking small: application of microfluidic technology to improve ART.

Authors:  J E Swain; D Lai; S Takayama; G D Smith
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2013-04-07       Impact factor: 6.799

Review 5.  Review: Diagnosis and impact of sperm DNA alterations in assisted reproduction.

Authors:  Luke Simon; Benjamin R Emery; Douglas T Carrell
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 5.237

6.  Analysis of the relationships between oxidative stress, DNA damage and sperm vitality in a patient population: development of diagnostic criteria.

Authors:  R John Aitken; Geoffry N De Iuliis; Jane M Finnie; Andrew Hedges; Robert I McLachlan
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  Isolation of motile spermatozoa from semen samples using microfluidics.

Authors:  Timothy G Schuster; Brenda Cho; Laura M Keller; Shuichi Takayama; Gary D Smith
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.828

8.  Long-term effects of mouse intracytoplasmic sperm injection with DNA-fragmented sperm on health and behavior of adult offspring.

Authors:  Raúl Fernández-Gonzalez; Pedro Nuno Moreira; Miriam Pérez-Crespo; Manuel Sánchez-Martín; Miguel Angel Ramirez; Eva Pericuesta; Ainhoa Bilbao; Pablo Bermejo-Alvarez; Juan de Dios Hourcade; Fernando Rodriguez de Fonseca; Alfonso Gutiérrez-Adán
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 4.285

Review 9.  Sperm processing for advanced reproductive technologies: Where are we today?

Authors:  Kari L Rappa; Harold F Rodriguez; Gloria C Hakkarainen; Raymond M Anchan; George L Mutter; Waseem Asghar
Journal:  Biotechnol Adv       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 14.227

10.  Sperm DNA fragmentation, recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage.

Authors:  Carol Coughlan; Helen Clarke; Rachel Cutting; Jane Saxton; Sarah Waite; William Ledger; Tinchiu Li; Allan A Pacey
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.285

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.