Sperm Processing in Assisted Reproductive Technology

  • Rocio Rivera-Egea
  • Nicolás Garrido
  • Alex C. Varghese


Semen processing is an integral step in assisted reproductive technology. To obtain a good fertilization rate and produce good-quality embryos, the semen sample needs to be processed so that spermatozoa of the highest quality can be obtained and used for fertilization. The quality of the sperm-processing laboratory, equipment and disposables used; the proficiency of the technician; and the method employed all contribute to the final yield of a good aliquot of spermatozoa. Proper decision making on the type of method employed for the processing and selection of the spermatozoa definitely impacts the outcome. Moreover, it is essential that the laboratory has a strict quality control program. This chapter reviews the pros and cons of various processing techniques, with an emphasis on suitable processing and selection methods, on the basis of the authors’ experience.


Semen Sperm processing Density gradient Sperm selection 


  1. 1.
    Aitken J, Fisher H. Reactive oxygen species generation and human spermatozoa: the balance of benefit and risk. BioEssays. 1994;16(4):259–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Jonge C. The clinical value of sperm nuclear DNA assessment. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(2):51–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parinaud J, Le Lannou D, Vieitez G, Griveau JF, Milhet P, Richoilley G. Enhancement of motility by treating spermatozoa with an antioxidant solution (sperm-fit) following ejaculation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(11):2434–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yan RY. Practical eugenics. 2nd ed. Beijing: People Health; 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang FN. Assisted human reproductive technology. Washington, DC: Hemisphere; 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldenberg M, Rabinovici J, Bider D, Lunenfeld B, Blankstein J, Weissenberg R. Intra-uterine insemination with prepared sperm vs. unprepared first split ejaculates. A randomized study. Andrologia. 1992;24(3):135–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berg U, Brucker C, Berg FD. Effect of motile sperm count after swim-up on outcome of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(4):747–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang HY, Lee CL, Lai YM, Chang MY, Wang HS, Chang SY, et al. The impact of the total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husband's spermatozoa. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(1):56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khalil MR, Rasmussen PE, Erb K, Laursen SB, Rex S, Westergaard LG. Homologous intrauterine insemination. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 2473 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(1):74–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allamaneni SS, Agarwal A, Rama S, Ranganathan P, Sharma RK. Comparative study on density gradients and swim-up preparation techniques utilizing neat and cryopreserved spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2005;7(1):86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim EK, Kim EH, Kim EA, Lee KA, Shin JE, Kwon H. Comparison of the effect of different media on the clinical outcomes of the density-gradient centrifugation/swim-up and swim-up methods. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2015;42(1):22–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henkel RR, Schill WB. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2003;1:108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malvezzi H, Sharma R, Agarwal A, Abuzenadah AM, Abu-Elmagd M. Sperm quality after density gradient centrifugation with three commercially available media: a controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cottell E, Lennon B, McMorrow J, Barry-Kinsella C, Harrison RF. Processing of semen in an antibiotic-rich culture medium to minimize microbial presence during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(1):98–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bahmanpour S, Namavar MR, Talaei-Khozani T, Mazaheri Z. The effect of the follicular fluid on sperm chromatin quality in comparison with conventional media. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(13):1840–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deppe M, Morales P, Sanchez R. Effect of protease inhibitors on the acrosome reaction and sperm-zona pellucida binding in bovine sperm. Reprod Domest Anim. 2008;43(6):713–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carlsson L, Ronquist G, Stridsberg M, Johansson L. Motility stimulant effects of prostasome inclusion in swim-up medium on cryopreserved human spermatozoa. Arch Androl. 1997;38(3):215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dissanayake DM, Amaranath KA, Perera RR, Wijesinghe PS. Antibiotics supplemented culture media can eliminate non-specific bacteria from human semen during sperm preparation for intra uterine insemination. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2014;7(1):58–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vijayakumar R, Ndubisi B, De Leon F, Heine W. Sperm wash in three culture media: maximization of motile sperm recovery during swim-up incubation. Andrologia. 1987;19(5):579–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matson P, Tardif S. A preliminary search for alternatives to albumin as a medium supplement for the culture of human sperm. Reprod Biol. 2012;12(3):329–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Phillips E, Carpenter C, Oates RD. Ejaculatory dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):115–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann T. The biochemistry of semen. London: Methuen; 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fuentes A. Bioquímica clínica y patología molecular 2. Reverte 1998:540.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Owen DH, Katz DF. A review of the physical and chemical properties of human semen and the formulation of a semen simulant. J Androl. 2005;26(4):459–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huggins C. The etiology of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1947;23(12):696–704.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Canale D, Bartelloni M, Negroni A, Meschini P, Izzo PL, Bianchi B, et al. Zinc in human semen. Int J Androl. 1986;9(6):477–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guyton AC, Hall JE. Textbook of medical physiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harvey C. Relation between the volume and fructose content of human semen. Nature. 1948;162(4125):812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Owen DH, Katz DF. A review of the physical and chemical properties of human semen and the formulation of a semen simulant. J Androl. 2005;26(4):459–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barak S, Baker HWG. In: De Groot LJ, Chrousos G, Dungan K, Feingold KR, Grossman A, Hershman JM, et al., editors. Clinical management of male infertility. Endotext. South Dartmouth:; 2000.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gil Salom M, Bellver J, Romero JL, Rossal LP, Gutierrez A, Escudero E, Simón C, Pellicer A, Remohí J. In: Remohí J, Pellicer A, Simón C, Navarro J, editors. Espermatogénesis: conceptos básicos en reproducción humana. 2nd ed. Madrid: McGraw-Hill/Interamericana; 2002. p. 273–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gil M, Sar-Shalom V, Melendez Sivira Y, Carreras R, Checa MA. Sperm selection using magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(4):479–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed: WHO press; 2010.
  35. 35.
    Gianaroli L, Plachot M, van Kooij R, Al-Hasani S, Dawson K, DeVos A, et al. ESHRE guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Committee of the Special Interest Group on Embryology of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(10):2241–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McLendon WW. The American Fertility Society–College of American Pathologists Collaborative Program for accreditation of in vitro fertilization embryo laboratories. Building bridges to enhance patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(4):317–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Magli MC, Van den Abbeel E, Lundin K, Royere D, Van der Elst J, Gianaroli L, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mortimer D, Mortimer ST. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp 232.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Types of consent in reproductive health care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;128(2):181–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kussler AP, Pimentel AM, Alcoba DD, Liu IP, Brum IS, Capp E, et al. Mechanical processing of hyperviscous semen specimens can negatively affect sperm DNA fragmentation. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46(4):737–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Honea KL, Houserman VL, Merryman DC, Free DA, Stringfellow SE. Effect of limited proteolysis with alpha-chymotrypsin on semen with an abnormal sperm penetration assay and possible application for in vitro fertilization or intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10(4):255–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Centola GM. In: Patton PE, Battaglia DE, editors. Sperm preparation for insemination. Office andrology. Totowa: Humana Press; 2005. p. 39–52.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhao J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Li Y. Whether sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation has an effect on pregnancy and miscarriage after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):998–1005.e8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Speyer BE, Pizzey AR, Ranieri M, Joshi R, Delhanty JD, Serhal P. Fall in implantation rates following ICSI with sperm with high DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(7):1609–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shirota K, Yotsumoto F, Itoh H, Obama H, Hidaka N, Nakajima K, et al. Separation efficiency of a microfluidic sperm sorter to minimize sperm DNA damage. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):315–21.e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Li Z, Zhou Y, Liu R, Lin H, Liu W, Xiao W, et al. Effects of semen processing on the generation of reactive oxygen species and mitochondrial membrane potential of human spermatozoa. Andrologia. 2012;44(3):157–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beck-Fruchter R, Shalev E, Weiss A. Clinical benefit using sperm hyaluronic acid binding technique in ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32(3):286–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Majumdar G, Majumdar A. A prospective randomized study to evaluate the effect of hyaluronic acid sperm selection on the intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome of patients with unexplained infertility having normal semen parameters. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(11):1471–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mokánszki A, Tothne EV, Bodnar B, Tandor Z, Molnar Z, Jakab A, et al. Is sperm hyaluronic acid binding ability predictive for clinical success of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: PICSI vs. ICSI? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014;60(6):348–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simopoulou M, Gkoles L, Bakas P, Giannelou P, Kalampokas T, Pantos K, et al. Improving ICSI: a review from the spermatozoon perspective. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2016;62(6):359–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Boitrelle F, Guthauser B, Alter L, Bailly M, Bergere M, Wainer R, et al. High-magnification selection of spermatozoa prior to oocyte injection: confirmed and potential indications. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(1):6–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mongkolchaipak S, Vutyavanich T. No difference in high-magnification morphology and hyaluronic acid binding in the selection of euploid spermatozoa with intact DNA. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(3):421–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ebner T, Tews G, Mayer RB, Ziehr S, Arzt W, Costamoling W, et al. Pharmacological stimulation of sperm motility in frozen and thawed testicular sperm using the dimethylxanthine theophylline. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1331–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nagy ZP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. An improved treatment procedure for testicular biopsy specimens offers more efficient sperm recovery: case series. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(2):376–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simon L, Murphy K, Aston KI, Emery BR, Hotaling JM, Carrell DT. Micro-electrophoresis: a noninvasive method of sperm selection based on membrane charge. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):361–366.e3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mortimer ST, Swan MA, Mortimer D. Effect of seminal plasma on capacitation and hyperactivation in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2139–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Highland HN, Rishika AS, Almira SS, Kanthi PB. Ficoll-400 density gradient method as an effective sperm preparation technique for assisted reproductive techniques. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016;9(3):194–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Volpes A, Sammartano F, Rizzari S, Gullo S, Marino A, Allegra A. The pellet swim-up is the best technique for sperm preparation during in vitro fertilization procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(6):765–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Paasch U, Grunewald S, Glander HJ. Sperm selection in assisted reproductive techniques. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2007;65:515–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yamanaka M, Tomita K, Hashimoto S, Matsumoto H, Satoh M, Kato H, et al. Combination of density gradient centrifugation and swim-up methods effectively decreases morphologically abnormal sperms. J Reprod Dev. 2016;62(6):599–606.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhao F, Yang Q, Shi S, Luo X, Sun Y. Semen preparation methods and sperm telomere length: density gradient centrifugation versus the swim up procedure. Sci Rep. 2016;6:39051.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xue X, Wang WS, Shi JZ, Zhang SL, Zhao WQ, Shi WH, et al. Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(9):1161–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Butt A, Chohan MA. Comparative efficacy of density gradient and swim-up methods of semen preparation in intrauterine insemination cycles. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66(8):932–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Akerlof E, Fredricson B, Gustafsson O, Lundin A, Lunell NO, Nylund L, et al. Comparison between a swim-up and a Percoll gradient technique for the separation of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 1987;10(5):663–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    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(10):698–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    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(2):632–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Morales P, Vantman D, Barros C, Vigil P. Human spermatozoa selected by Percoll gradient or swim-up are equally capable of binding to the human zona pellucida and undergoing the acrosome reaction. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(3):401–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gorus FK, Pipeleers DG. A rapid method for the fractionation of human spermatozoa according to their progressive motility. Fertil Steril. 1981;35(6):662–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mathieu C, Guerin JF, Gille Y, Pinatel MC, Lornage J, Boulieu D. Separation of spermatozoa using Percoll gradients: value for in vitro fertilization. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1988;17(2):237–41.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    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(4):722–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Evliyaoglu Y, Ciftci U, Bozdemir N. Spermatozoa selection by the swim-up procedure and two-layer Percoll gradient centrifugation. Int Urol Nephrol. 1996;28(3):409–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Moohan JM, Lindsay KS. Spermatozoa selected by a discontinuous Percoll density gradient exhibit better motion characteristics, more hyperactivation, and longer survival than direct swim-up. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(1):160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Harris SJ, Milligan MP, Masson GM, Dennis KJ. Improved separation of motile sperm in asthenospermia and its application to artificial insemination homologous (AIH). Fertil Steril. 1981;36(2):219–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mahadevan M, Baker G. Micro-electrophoresis: a noninvasive method of sperm selection based on membrane charge. In: Wood C, Trounson A. Clinical in vitro fertilization. Berlin: Springer 1984. p. 83–97.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jefferys A, Siassakos D, Wardle P. The management of retrograde ejaculation: a systematic review and update. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):306–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Giuliano F, Clement P. Neuroanatomy and physiology of ejaculation. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2005;16:190–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rocio Rivera-Egea
    • 1
  • Nicolás Garrido
    • 2
  • Alex C. Varghese
    • 3
  1. 1.Andrology Laboratory and Sperm Bank, IVIRMA ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.IVI FoundationValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Astra Fertility GroupMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations