Sperm DNA Fragmentation has been linked to poor reproductive outcome. ICSI invovles the selection of an individual spermatozoon to inject but there is no mechanism to assiss the viability of each spermatozoa. One tool maybe the processing of sperm to remove sperm with DNA fragmentation and concentrate viable sperm for injection. This course focuses on articles that have explored such sperm selection techniques.
Access
0
You need to be registered and subscribed to view these activities.
There are 4 key points collected on this topic but you need to have a current subscription to access them
References related to Sperm Selection and DNA damage
-[6] [Ref=7]
Anbari F, Khalili MA, Sultan Ahamed AM, Mangoli E, Nabi A, Dehghanpour F, Sabour M. Microfluidic sperm selection yields higher sperm quality compared to conventional method in ICSI program: A pilot study. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2021 Jan 15:1-7. doi: 10.1080/19396368.2020.
ID:3155
Year:2021, DOI:10.1080/19396368.2020.
0
8876
2021
Last edited on 14/2/2021
Pacheco A, Blanco A, Bronet F, Cruz M, García-Fernández J, García-Velasco JA. Magnetic-Activated Cell Sorting (MACS): A Useful Sperm-Selection Technique in Cases of High Levels of Sperm DNA Fragmentation. J Clin Med. 2020 Dec 8,9(12):3976. doi: 10.3390/jcm9123976
ID:3156
Year:2020, DOI:10.3390/jcm9123976
0
0
2020
Last edited on 14/2/2021
De Gheselle S, Deroose A, Stevens J, Hiel M, Tilleman K. A methodological validation of an easy one-step swimout semen preparation procedure for selecting DNA fragmentation-free spermatozoa for ICSI. Andrologia. 2020 Dec,52(11):e13852. doi: 10.1111/and.13852. Epub 2020 Oct 28
ID:3157
Year:2020, DOI:10.1111/and.13852. Epub 2020 Oct 28
0
0
2020
Last edited on 14/2/2021
Hasanen E, Elqusi K, ElTanbouly S, Hussin AE, AlKhadr H, Zaki H, Henkel R, Agarwal A. PICSI vs. MACS for abnormal sperm DNA fragmentation ICSI cases: a prospective randomized trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Oct,37(10):2605-2613. doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01913-4
ID:3158
Year:2020, DOI:10.1007/s10815-020-01913-4
0
0
2020
Last edited on 14/2/2021
Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, Ona K, Demirci U, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod. 2018 Aug 1,33(8):1388-1393. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey239
ID:3159
Year:2018, DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey239
0
0
2018
Last edited on 14/2/2021
Meitei HY, Uppangala S, Sharan K, Chandraguthi SG, Radhakrishnan A, Kalthur G, Schlatt S, Adiga SK. A Simple, Centrifugation-Free, Sperm-Sorting Device Eliminates the Risks of Centrifugation in the Swim-Up Method While Maintaining Functional Competence and DNA Integrity of Selected Spermatozoa. Reprod Sci. 2021 Jan,28(1):134-143. doi: 10.1007/s43032-020-00269-5
ID:3160
Year:2021, DOI:10.1007/s43032-020-00269-5
0
0
2021
Last edited on 14/2/2021
Shirota K, Yotsumoto F, Itoh H, Obama H, Hidaka N, Nakajima K, Miyamoto S. Separation efficiency of a microfluidic sperm sorter to minimize sperm DNA damage. Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb,105(2):315-21.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.023
ID:3183
Year:2016, DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.023
0
0
2016
Last edited on 20/2/2021
Additional References related to Sperm Selection and DNA damage - [1]
