Effects of sperm preparation techniques on sperm survivability and DNA fragmentation

Minh Tâm Lê1,2, Hong Nhan Thi Dang1, Trung Van Nguyen1, Thai Thanh Thi Nguyen1, Vũ Quốc Huy Nguyễn2, Ngọc Thành Cao1,2
1Center for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Vietnam
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Vietnam

Tóm tắt

Objective

This study was performed to determine the effect of swim-up (SU) and density gradient centrifugation (DGC) on sperm survival and DNA fragmentation.

Methods

Individual semen samples were analyzed before each was divided into two aliquots (half for SU and half for DGC) for calculation of sperm survival and the DNA fragmentation index (DFI). Sperm DNA fragmentation was determined using the sperm chromatin dispersion test.

Results

The DFI of the 63 semen samples processed using both procedures was lower than that of the fresh semen samples. The DFI was significantly lower for samples processed using the SU than DGC method. In the sperm survival test, the SU technique was associated with increased sperm motility and vitality following preparation. After 24 hours, however, the concentration and percentage of surviving sperm were significantly lower in the SU than DGC group.

Conclusions

Both semen preparation techniques help to minimize sperm DNA fragmentation; however, when the DFI is <30%, the SU technique is more appropriate than DGC. While DGC may be superior for intrauterine insemination, the SU method may be preferable for in vitro fertilization or maturation.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.4103/0974-1208.170370

10.1186/s12958-015-0032-1

10.1056/NEJMoa003005

10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.049

Agarwal A, 2004, Minerva Ginecol, 56, 235

Shamsi MB, 2008, Indian J Med Res, 127, 115

10.1016/j.repbio.2015.03.003

10.1371/journal.pone.0165125

10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.04.029

10.1016/j.urology.2010.04.036

10.1007/978-1-62703-038-0_14

Fernández JL, 2003, J Androl, 24, 59, 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003.tb02641.x

10.1093/humupd/dmi047

10.1002/j.1939-4640.1988.tb01067.x

10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00295-2

10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00770-6

10.1038/s41598-019-43981-2

10.1007/s10815-018-1163-z

10.1093/humrep/16.9.1950

10.1007/s10815-014-0339-4

10.1007/s10815-014-0287-z

10.1038/srep39051

10.1111/j.2047-2927.2014.00234.x

10.5653/cerm.2017.44.4.201

10.1007/s10815-012-9742-x

Amiri I, 2012, J Clin Diagnostic Res, 6, 1451

10.1038/aja.2011.46

10.1262/jrd.2016-112

10.1186/1477-7827-12-121

10.5653/cerm.2019.46.1.8

10.1016/j.aju.2017.11.001

10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60887-5

10.1007/s10815-009-9359-x