Advertisement

Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage

  • Varshini JayaramanEmail author
  • Dinesh Upadhya
  • Pratap Kumar Narayan
  • Satish Kumar Adiga
Technical Innovations

Abstract

Purpose

DNA damage may occur during sperm processing, thereby negatively influencing fertilizing ability of the sperm. The present study was designed to compare the effectiveness of gradient and swim-up, either alone or in combination, to eliminate sperm with DNA damage.

Methods

A total of 51 subjects visiting the University infertility clinic with normozoospermic parameters, oligozoospermia and teratozoospermia were included. Semen characteristics were analysed by standard criteria; Terminal deoxy nucelotidyl transferase mediated dUTP nick end labeling assay was employed for DNA damage assessment.

Results

The percentage of TUNEL positive sperm after sperm processing was significantly lower in normozoospermic (P < 0.05), oligozoospermic (P < 0.001) and teratozoospermic samples (P < 0.01). No difference was observed in the incidence of TUNEL positive sperm between the various techniques, suggesting that they are comparable.

Conclusions

Sperm preparation has been found to result in enrichment of sperm with intact chromatin, which is likely to improve the chances of achieving a viable pregnancy.

Keywords

Sperm DNA damage Sperm selection Semen preparation Swim-up Density gradient 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Financial assistance provided by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University to Ms.Varshini J (No. Accts/2008-09) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Henkel RR, Schill WB. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2003;1:108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in defining the efficacy of sperm preparation techniques. J Androl. 1988;9:367–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iwasaki A, Gagnon C. Formation of reactive oxygen species in spermatozoa of infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:409–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griveau JF, Le Lannou D. Effects of antioxidants on human sperm preparation techniques. Int J Androl. 1994;17:225–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aitken RJ, Buckingham DW, Brindle J, Gomez E, Baker HW, Irvine DS. Analysis of sperm movement in relation to the oxidative stress created by leukocytes in washed sperm preparations and seminal plasma. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2061–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zalata A, Hafez T, Comhaire F. Evaluation of the role of reactive oxygen species in male infertility. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1444–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mortimer D. Sperm preparation techniques and iatrogenic failures of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:173–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oehninger S, Blackmore P, Mahony M, Hodgen G. Effects of hydrogen peroxide on human spermatozoa. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:41–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Lannou D, Blanchard Y. Nuclear maturity and morphology of human spermatozoa selected by Percoll density gradient centrifugation or swim-up procedure. J Reprod Fertil. 1988;84:551–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng FL, Liu DY, Baker HW. Comparison of Percoll, mini-Percoll and swim-up methods for sperm preparation from abnormal semen samples. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:261–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen SU, Ho HN, Chen HF, Chao KH, Lin HR, Huang SC, et al. Comparison between a two-layer discontinuous Percoll gradient and swim-up for sperm preparation on normal and abnormal semen samples. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:698–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen SU, Ho HN, Chen HF, Chao KH, Wu MY, Chen CD, et al. Combination of direct swim-up technique and discontinuous Percoll gradient centrifugation for sperm preparation of oligoasthenozoospermic samples. Arch Androl. 1996;37:103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakash P, Leykin L, Chen Z, Toth T, Sayegh R, Schiff I, et al. Preparation by differential gradient centrifugation is better than swim-up in selecting sperm with normal morphology (strict criteria). Fertil Steril. 1998;69:722–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Tomlinson M, Mandrioli M, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56:1081–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zini A, Nam RK, Mak V, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of initial semen quality on the integrity of human sperm DNA following semen processing. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:824–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ricci G, Perticarari S, Boscolo R, Montico M, Guaschino S, Presani G. Semen preparation methods and sperm apoptosis: swim-up versus gradient-density centrifugation technique. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:632–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;3:CD004507.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD004507.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spanò M, Toft G, Hagmar L, Eleuteri P, Rescia M, Rignell-Hydbom A, et al. Exposure to PCB and p, p’-DDE in European and Inuit populations: impact on human sperm chromatin Integrity. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3488–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakkas D, Alvarez JG. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:1027–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erempreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bungum M, Spanò M, Humaidan P, Eleuteri P, Rescia M, Giwercman A. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters measured after density gradient centrifugation are not predictive for the outcome of ART. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:4–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gosálvez J, Cortés-Gutiérrez EI, Nuñez R, Fernández JL, Caballero P, López-Fernández C, et al. A dynamic assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation versus sperm viability in proven fertile human donors. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1915–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dalzell LH, McVicar CM, McClure N, Lutton D, Lewis SE. Effects of short and long incubations on DNA fragmentation of testicular sperm. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1443–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bormann C, Rocha A, Hassun P, Motta E, Serafini P, Smith G. The effect of sperm separation on sperm chromatin decondensation and motility at 0 and 24 hours of culture. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S452–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zini A, Mak V, Phang D, Jarvi K. Potential adverse effect of semen processing on human sperm deoxyribonucleic acid integrity. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:496–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stevanato J, Bertolla RP, Barradas V, Spaine DM, Cedenho AP, Ortiz V. Semen processing by density gradient centrifugation does not improve sperm apoptotic deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation rates. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:889–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Twigg J, Irvine DS, Houston P, Fulton N, Michael L, Aitken RJ. Iatrogenic DNA damage induced in human spermatozoa during sperm preparation: protective significance of seminal plasma. Mol Hum Reprod. 1998;4:439–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kheirollahi-Kouhestani M, Razavi S, Tavalaee M, Deemeh MR, Mardani M, Moshtaghian J, et al. Selection of sperm based on combined density gradient and Zeta method may improve ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2409–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varshini Jayaraman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dinesh Upadhya
    • 1
  • Pratap Kumar Narayan
    • 1
  • Satish Kumar Adiga
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Medicine, Clinical Embryology LaboratoryKasturba Medical College Manipal UniversityManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations