Sperm selection with density gradient centrifugation and swim up: effect on DNA fragmentation in viable spermatozoa.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 05 2019
16 05 2019
Historique:
received:
13
11
2018
accepted:
25
04
2019
entrez:
18
5
2019
pubmed:
18
5
2019
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Subjects increasing sperm DNA fragmentation (sDF) during Density Gradient Centrifugation (DGC), a common sperm selection procedure in Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ARTs), experience a 50% lower probability of pregnancy. Hence, identification of these subjects is of clinical importance. Here, we investigated whether such subjects are identified with higher accuracy detecting DNA fragmentation in viable (viable sDF) instead of total spermatozoa (total sDF) and whether swim up, an alternative procedure to DGC, does not increase sDF. With DGC, we identified 10/20 subjects increasing total sDF, and 2 more subjects using viable sDF. With swim up, we identified 8/40 subjects increasing total sDF, and 8 more subjects using viable sDF. In addition, viable sDF reveals more accurately the increase of the damage when it occurs. Finally, a multivariate analysis demonstrated that the proportional increase of sDF was higher after DGC respect to swim up. In conclusion, viable sDF is a more accurate parameter to reveal the increase of the damage by selection both with swim up and DGC. Swim up increases sDF in some samples, although at a lesser extent than DGC, suggesting that it should be used to select spermatozoa for ARTs when possible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31097741
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43981-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-43981-2
pmc: PMC6522556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7492Références
BMJ. 2006 Sep 30;333(7570):679
pubmed: 16893903
Mol Hum Reprod. 1999 Jan;5(1):29-37
pubmed: 10050659
Hum Reprod. 1997 Sep;12(9):1969-73
pubmed: 9363715
J Androl. 2004 Sep-Oct;25(5):797-810
pubmed: 15292113
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):765-70
pubmed: 26984108
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Feb;30(2):120-7
pubmed: 25530036
Urology. 2000 Dec 20;56(6):1081-4
pubmed: 11113773
J Androl. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):229-38
pubmed: 21546611
Asian J Androl. 2017 Jan-Feb;19(1):80-90
pubmed: 27345006
Hum Reprod. 2006 Nov;21(11):2876-81
pubmed: 16793992
Hum Reprod. 2014 Oct 10;29(10):2136-47
pubmed: 25141857
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;791:151-72
pubmed: 23955678
Hum Reprod. 1996 Aug;11(8):1661-7
pubmed: 8921113
Hum Reprod Update. 2015 Nov-Dec;21(6):711-26
pubmed: 26386468
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2017 Dec;44(4):201-206
pubmed: 29376017
Hum Reprod. 2001 Sep;16(9):1950-3
pubmed: 11527903
Hum Reprod. 2010 Oct;25(10):2415-26
pubmed: 20716559
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356
pubmed: 23271957
Hum Reprod. 2011 Sep;26(9):2274-82
pubmed: 21771771
Hum Reprod. 2011 Mar;26(3):729; author reply 729-30
pubmed: 21245032
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Jan;22(1):37-43
pubmed: 21115273
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004 Jun;21(6):217-22
pubmed: 15526977
Int J Androl. 2011 Dec;34(6 Pt 1):581-93
pubmed: 21039605
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):998-1005.e8
pubmed: 25190048
Hum Reprod. 1995 Jan;10(1):120-4
pubmed: 7745039
Hum Reprod. 1997 Aug;12(8):1742-9
pubmed: 9308805
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017 Jun 1;21(2):89-93
pubmed: 28609274
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Jun;14(6):746-57
pubmed: 17579991
J Androl. 2002 Jan-Feb;23(1):25-43
pubmed: 11780920
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD004507
pubmed: 17943816
Mutat Res. 2012 Jun 1;734(1-2):41-9
pubmed: 22469500
Adv Urol. 2013;2013:578631
pubmed: 24198830
Int J Androl. 2011 Feb;34(1):2-13
pubmed: 20158539
Int J Androl. 2001 Dec;24(6):360-8
pubmed: 11737417
J Androl. 2010 Jul-Aug;31(4):336-45
pubmed: 19959824
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 Nov 24;12:112
pubmed: 25421286
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):598-604
pubmed: 19393999
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(20):e3624
pubmed: 27196465