Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sperm Processing in Assisted Reproductive Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Vitro Fertilization

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aitken J, Fisher H. Reactive oxygen species generation and human spermatozoa: the balance of benefit and risk. BioEssays. 1994;16(4):259–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Jonge C. The clinical value of sperm nuclear DNA assessment. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(2):51–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yan RY. Practical eugenics. 2nd ed. Beijing: People Health; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wang FN. Assisted human reproductive technology. Washington, DC: Hemisphere; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Phillips E, Carpenter C, Oates RD. Ejaculatory dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):115–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mann T. The biochemistry of semen. London: Methuen; 1954.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Fuentes A. Bioquímica clínica y patología molecular 2. Reverte 1998:540.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huggins C. The etiology of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1947;23(12):696–704.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guyton AC, Hall JE. Textbook of medical physiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harvey C. Relation between the volume and fructose content of human semen. Nature. 1948;162(4125):812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: MDText.com; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed: WHO press; 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241547789_eng.pdf.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mortimer D, Mortimer ST. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp 232.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Types of consent in reproductive health care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;128(2):181–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Jefferys A, Siassakos D, Wardle P. The management of retrograde ejaculation: a systematic review and update. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Giuliano F, Clement P. Neuroanatomy and physiology of ejaculation. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2005;16:190–216.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Andrology Laboratory and Sperm Bank, IVIRMA Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Rocio Rivera-Egea

  2. IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain

    Nicolás Garrido

  3. Astra Fertility Group, Mississauga, ON, Canada

    Alex C. Varghese

Authors
  1. Rocio Rivera-Egea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolás Garrido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex C. Varghese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Biology Associates – Prelude, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Zsolt Peter Nagy

  2. Astra Fertility Group, Mississauga, ON, Canada

    Alex C. Varghese

  3. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Ashok Agarwal

Review Questions

Review Questions

  1. 1.

    What is the aim of sperm processing?

  2. 2.

    Why is it necessary to prepare sperm samples before using them in assisted reproductive technology?

  3. 3.

    Can sperm preparation be considered a diagnostic tool to select the most convenient assisted reproductive technology?

  4. 4.

    Which are the different parts of the ejaculate?

  5. 5.

    What are the reference values of the total motile sperm for each assisted reproductive technology?

  6. 6.

    Are consents and standard operating procedures important documentation in laboratories?

  7. 7.

    Are sperm-processing/selection methods the same in all types of samples or cases?

  8. 8.

    Is a post-thawing test recommended for frozen samples?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rivera-Egea, R., Garrido, N., Varghese, A.C. (2019). Sperm Processing in Assisted Reproductive Technology. In: Nagy, Z., Varghese, A., Agarwal, A. (eds) In Vitro Fertilization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43011-9_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43011-9_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43010-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43011-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation