Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage
- 395 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsSperm DNA damage Sperm selection Semen preparation Swim-up Density gradient
Financial assistance provided by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University to Ms.Varshini J (No. Accts/2008-09) is gratefully acknowledged.
- 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
- 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.Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD004507.Google Scholar
- 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