4.6 Article

Sperm quality after density gradient centrifugation with three commercially available media: a controlled trial

期刊

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-121

关键词

Sperm motility; Sperm processing; Reproductive potential; Density gradient centrifugation; DNA fragmentation

资金

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Density gradient is the preferred technique for sperm processing for ART. However, no study has examined sperm quality using different processing media simultaneously and under identical conditions. Therefore, we evaluated semen quality following sperm preparation by three commonly used commercially available density gradient media in a well-designed controlled trial. Methods: We obtained semen samples from 20 healthy volunteers. Percent motility, total motile sperm (TMS), % recovery and DNA damage were assessed before and after separation in three different sperm density gradient media-PureCeption, ISolate and SpermGrad-125. Results: Percent motility was higher in the ISolate (81.4% +/- 6.6%) and SpermGrad-125 samples (85.7% +/- 8.0%) (P < 0.0001) than in the PureCeption samples (62.5% +/- 13.2%) (P = 0.07). TMS was higher in the PureCeption(TM) and ISolate samples (14.2% +/- 15.9% and 15.8% +/- 18.2%) than in those prepared with SpermGrad-125 (10.6% +/- 19.7%) (P < 0.0001). Percent recovery was significantly higher in the PureCeption(TM) and ISolate samples (45.3% and 48.9%) than in the SpermGrad-125(TM) samples (30.8%) (P < 0.01). DNA fragmentation was comparable across the three gradients (PureCeption = 8.8% +/- 4.7%; ISolate = 7.2 +/- 5.2% and SpermGrad-125 = 11.2% +/- 7.4%). Conclusions: Three different density gradient processing media PureCeption, ISolate, and SpermGrad-125 were examined for their effects on sperm quality. Sperm processed by ISolate and Sperm Grad 125 had better motility and TMS after processing. The extent of DNA damage was comparable in all three gradients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据