
pmid: 26278809
In this prospective comparative study, sperm DNA fragmentation (sDNAfrag) was compared at each step of a sequential semen preparation, with semen parameters according to their degree of severity. At each step (fractions) of the sequential procedure, sDNAfrag was determined: fresh (Raw), after gradient centrifugation, washing, and swim-up (SU) for 70 infertile men enrolled in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. sDNAfrag significantly (P = 0.04; P < 0.0001) decreased throughout the steps of semen preparation, with centrifugation and washing not increasing it. A negative correlation to sperm motility was observed in Raw and SU fractions, and a higher sDNAfrag was observed in samples with lower semen quality. Our results confirm that the steps of the sequential procedure do not compromise sperm DNA integrity and progressively decreased sDNAfrag regardless of the sperm abnormality and that semen parameters with lower quality present higher sDNAfrag. Four distinct patterns were observed, of which the entire sperm head staining was the pattern most expressed in all studied fractions. Additionally, the sperm head gene-rich region staining pattern was reduced by the procedure. This suggests that pattern quantification might be a useful adjunct when performing sDNAfrag testing for male infertility.
Adult, Male, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Sperm Count, Staining and Labeling, DNA Fragmentation, Middle Aged, Spermatozoa, Semen Analysis, Sperm Motility, Humans, Sperm Head, Female, Prospective Studies, Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic, Infertility, Male
Adult, Male, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Sperm Count, Staining and Labeling, DNA Fragmentation, Middle Aged, Spermatozoa, Semen Analysis, Sperm Motility, Humans, Sperm Head, Female, Prospective Studies, Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic, Infertility, Male
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 22 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
