4.4 Article

Magnetic-activated cell sorting is not completely effective at reducing sperm DNA fragmentation

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 35, Issue 12, Pages 2215-2221

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1319-x

Keywords

Male factor; MACS; Sperm DNA fragmentation

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [BFU-2013-44290-R]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo determine whether there is a homogeneous reduction of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) in sperm samples recovered from the MACS procedure, compared to spermatozoa in the initial ejaculate (NEAT) and those retained in the column.MethodsThis study investigated the relative change in sperm DNA quality (SDF) of neat ejaculates (10 idiopathic infertile and 10 normozoospermic patients) to subpopulations of spermatozoa that had passed through the column (MACS-) and those retained (MACS+) by the annexin-V conjugated microbeads.ResultsWhile the MACS protocol was capable of reducing the mean proportion of SDF (59.2%; P=0.000) and sperm with highly degraded DNA (SDD; 65.7%, P=0.000) in all patients, the reduction was not homogeneous across the patient cohort. A significant positive correlation (r=0.772, P=0.000) was apparent between the level of SDF in the NEAT ejaculate and the efficacy of SDF reduction observed in the MACS- fraction.ConclusionMACS is capable of reducing the proportion of SDF, especially spermatozoa with a highly degraded DNA molecule. However, this reduction did not preclude the presence of a small subpopulation of spermatozoa with damaged DNA in the MACS- fraction. The MACS protocol was two- to threefold more efficient when the SDF in NEAT ejaculate was equal to or greater than 30%. In 4 of 20 individuals, the level of SDF after MACS resulted in semen for ICSI with a higher or non-significant reduction when compared to SDF observed in the NEAT ejaculate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available