Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-09-2014 | Gamete Biology

Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients

Authors: Xia Xue, Wan-Shan Wang, Juan-Zi Shi, Si-Lin Zhang, Wan-Qiu Zhao, Wen-Hao Shi, Bao-Zhu Guo, Zhen Qin

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 9/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of swim-up and DGC in improving sperm deformity and DNA fragmentation and to determine which method is better in teratozoospermic patients requiring artificial reproduction.

Methods

The present study compared the effects of swim-up and density gradient centrifugation (DGC), the two most commonly used semen preparation methods, on sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index (DFI) in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients.

Results

The results demonstrated that both swim-up and DGC yielded a significantly lower sperm deformity rate and DFI in comparison to unprocessed whole semen, with DGC having more favorable results. Sperm deformity rate in unprocessed whole semen samples was significantly lower in the 20–29 age group than in the 40-49 age group, but no significant difference was observed in DFI between different age groups. There was no significant correlation between sperm deformity rate and DFI.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that enrichment of sperm with normal morphology and intact DNA in teratozoospermic patients could be achieved by both DGC and swim-up procedures, and that DGC is a better method.

Burrello N, Arcidiacono G, Vicari E, Asero P, Di Benedetto D, et al. Morphologically normal spermatozoa of patients with secretory oligo-astheno-teratozoospermia have an increased aneuploidy rate. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2298–302.PubMedCrossRef

Varghese AC, Bragais FM, Mukhopadhyay D, Kundu S, Pal M, et al. Human sperm DNA integrity in normal and abnormal semen samples and its correlation with sperm characteristics. Andrologia. 2009;41:207–15.PubMedCrossRef

Henkel R. Sperm preparation: state-of-the-art–physiological aspects and application of advanced sperm preparation methods. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:260–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Brahem S, Mehdi M, Elghezal H, Saad A. Detection of DNA fragmentation and meiotic segregation in human with isolated teratozoospermia. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:41–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;3:CD004507.PubMed

Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD004507.PubMed

Henkel RR, Schill WB. Sperm preparation for art. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2003;1:108.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

van der Merwe FH, Kruger TF, Oehninger SC, Lombard CJ. The use of semen parameters to identify the subfertile male in the general population. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59:86–91.PubMedCrossRef

Avendaño C, Oehninger S. DNA fragmentation in morphologically normal spermatozoa: how much should we be concerned in the ICSI era? J Androl. 2011;32:356–63.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Zini A. Are sperm chromatin and DNA defects relevant in the clinic? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57:78–85.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Simon L, Lewis SE. Sperm DNA damage or progressive motility: which one is the better predictor of fertilization in vitro? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57:133–8.PubMed

12.

World Health Organization. Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 5th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

13.

Paasch U, Grunewald S, Glander HJ. Sperm selection in assisted reproductive techniques. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2007;65:515–25.PubMed

14.

Jayaraman V, Upadhya D, Narayan PK, Adiga SK. Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:557–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

15.

Hammadeh ME, Kühnen A, Amer AS, Rosenbaum P, Schmidt W. Comparison of sperm preparation methods: effect on chromatin and morphology recovery rates and their consequences on the clinical outcome after in vitro fertilization embryo transfer. Int J Androl. 2001;24:360–8.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ng FL, Liu DY, Baker HW. Comparison of Percoll, mini-Percoll and swim-up methods of sperm preparation from abnormal semen samples. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:261–6.PubMed

17.

Chiamchanya C, Kaewnoonual N, Visutakul P, Manochantr S, Chaiya J. Comparative study of the effects of three semen preparation media on semen analysis, DNA damage and protamine deficiency, and the correlation between DNA integrity and sperm parameters. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:271–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Borges Jr E, Setti AS, Vingris L, Figueira Rde C, Braga DP, et al. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcomes: the role of sperm preparation techniques. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:849–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Tomlinson M, Mandrioli M, Bizzaro D, et al. The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1112–6.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56:1081–4.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Monqaut AL, Zavaleta C, Lopez G, Lafuente R, Brassesco M. Use of high-magnification microscopy for the assessment of sperm recovered after two different sperm processing methods. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:277–80.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ahmad L, Jalali S, Shami SA, Akram Z. Sperm preparation: DNA damage by comet assay in normo- and teratozoospermics. Arch Androl. 2007;53:325–38.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hashimoto S, Goda S, Akamatsu Y, Yamanaka M, Morimoto Y. Effects of sperm preparation on sperm DNA fragmentation and morphology. RBM Online. 2008;16:S28.

24.

Ricci G, Perticarari S, Boscolo R. MonticoM, Guaschino S et al. Semen preparation methods and sperm apoptosis: swim-up versus gradient-density centrifugation technique. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:632–8.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Siddighi S, Chan CA, Patton WC, Jacobson JD, Chan PJ. Male age and sperm necrosis in assisted reproductive technologies. Urol Int. 2007;79:231–4.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Plastira K, Msaouel P, Angelopoulou R, Zanioti K, Plastiras A, et al. The effects of age on DNA fragmentation, chromatin packaging and conventional semen parameters in spermatozoa of oligoasthenoteratozoospermic patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:437–43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

27.

Dakouane M, Albert M, Bergere M, Sabbagh C, Brayotel F, et al. Aging and spermatogenesis: an histologic, cytogenetic and apoptosis study. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005;33:659–64.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cohen-Bacrie P, Belloc S, Ménézo YJ, Clement P, Hamidi J, et al. Correlation between DNA damage and sperm parameters: a prospective study of 1,633 patients. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1801–5.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Singh NP, Muller CH, Berger RE. Effects of age on DNA double-strand breaks and apoptosis in human sperm. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1420–30.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Wyrobek AJ, Eskenazi B, Young S, Arnheim N, Tiemann-Boege I, et al. Advancing age has differential effects on DNA damage, chromatin integrity, gene mutations, and aneuploidies in sperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:9601–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

31.

Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, Lejeune H, Salle B, et al. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:93–100.PubMedCrossRef

32.

33.

Matsuura R, Takeuchi T, Yoshida A. Preparation and incubation conditions affect the DNA integrity of ejaculated human spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:753–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients
Authors: Xia Xue
Wan-Shan Wang
Juan-Zi Shi
Si-Lin Zhang
Wan-Qiu Zhao
Wen-Hao Shi
Bao-Zhu Guo
Zhen Qin
Publication date: 01-09-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 9/2014
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0287-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2014

The gradient technique improves success rates in intrauterine insemination cycles of unexplained subfertile couples when compared to swim up technique; a prospective randomized study.

The outcome of infertility treatment in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology after conservative therapy for endometrial cancer

Maternal age and initial β-hCG levels predict pregnancy outcome after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer

Meiotic segregation and sperm DNA fragmentation in Tunisian men with dysplasia of the fibrous sheath (DFS) associated with head abnormalities

Identification of biochemical differences between different forms of male infertility by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy

Relevant and irrelevant translational discovery and male infertility: the case of the Y chromosome and more!