TY - JOUR
T1 - Does combining magnetic-activated cell sorting with density gradient or swim-up improve sperm selection?
AU - Cakar, Zeynep
AU - Cetinkaya, Burcu
AU - Aras, Duru
AU - Koca, Betül
AU - Ozkavukcu, Sinan
AU - Kaplanoglu, İskender
AU - Can, Alp
AU - Cinar, Ozgur
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, 213S019) and Ankara University Scientific Research Project Coordination (AU-BAP 13O3330001). Preliminary outcomes of this study were presented in the ESHRE 2015 in Lisbon, Portugal.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Purpose The present study aimed to evaluate whether combining the magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) with density-gradient (DG) or swim-up (SU) sperm separation techniques can improve sperm selection to obtain higher quality spermatozoa. Methods Two commonly used sperm selection techniques, SU and DG, were compared to MACS combined with either SU or DG. Spermatozoa obtained from normozoospermic (n = 10) and oligozoospermic (n = 10) cases were grouped as SU, DG, SU+MACS, and DG+MACS followed by the analysis of sperm morphology, motility, DNA integrity, and the levels of Izumo-1 and PLCZ proteins. Results Although spermatozoa obtained by SU or DG when combined with MACS have improved aspects when compared to SU or DG alone, results did not reach a statistically significant level. Moreover, separation with MACS caused a significant loss in the numbers of total and rapid progressive spermatozoa. Conclusions: Considering the cost/benefit ratio, MACS application together with traditional techniques may only be preferred in certain cases having higher concentrations of spermatozoa, but it does not seem to be an ideal and practical sperm selection technique for routine use.
AB - Purpose The present study aimed to evaluate whether combining the magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) with density-gradient (DG) or swim-up (SU) sperm separation techniques can improve sperm selection to obtain higher quality spermatozoa. Methods Two commonly used sperm selection techniques, SU and DG, were compared to MACS combined with either SU or DG. Spermatozoa obtained from normozoospermic (n = 10) and oligozoospermic (n = 10) cases were grouped as SU, DG, SU+MACS, and DG+MACS followed by the analysis of sperm morphology, motility, DNA integrity, and the levels of Izumo-1 and PLCZ proteins. Results Although spermatozoa obtained by SU or DG when combined with MACS have improved aspects when compared to SU or DG alone, results did not reach a statistically significant level. Moreover, separation with MACS caused a significant loss in the numbers of total and rapid progressive spermatozoa. Conclusions: Considering the cost/benefit ratio, MACS application together with traditional techniques may only be preferred in certain cases having higher concentrations of spermatozoa, but it does not seem to be an ideal and practical sperm selection technique for routine use.
KW - DNA integrity
KW - Izumo-1
KW - Magnetic cell sorting
KW - PLC-ζ
KW - Sperm selection
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982806186&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10815-016-0742-0
DO - 10.1007/s10815-016-0742-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 27233651
AN - SCOPUS:84982806186
SN - 1058-0468
VL - 33
SP - 1059
EP - 1065
JO - Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
JF - Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
IS - 8
ER -