Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The pellet swim-up is the best technique for sperm preparation during in vitro fertilization procedures

  • Gamete Biology
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the most suitable sperm preparation technique to apply in order to obtain a spermatozoon population with minimal DNA damage during in vitro fertilization procedures. We compared four preparation techniques: direct swim-up (DSU), pellet swim-up (PSU), density gradient (DG), and density gradient followed by swim-up (DG-SU), evaluating the effects of each technique on the DNA damage rate, evaluated by DNA fragmentation index of the spermatozoa obtained.

Methods

In this observational study, 98 semen samples from couples undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles were included. Data were collected between April and November 2014 at the ANDROS Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy.

Result(s)

The percentages of DNA fragmentation were 18.30 ± 10.8 in raw samples, 6.6 ± 5.7 after DSU, 4.2 ± 3.8 after PSU, 12.9 ± 9.9 after DG, and 3.7 ± 4.0 after DG-SU respectively. Compared to the raw evaluation, all the preparation techniques significantly decreased the total rate of the DNA fragmentation (DSU Z = −8.60, P < 0.008; PSU Z = −8.54, P < 0.008; DG Z = −6.42, P < 0.008, and DG-SU Z = −8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). Comparing them, spermatozoa with intact DNA after PSU and DG-SU were significantly higher than after DSU (Z = −7.12, P < 0.008; Z = −6.59, P < 0.008, respectively) and after DG (Z = −8.41, P < 0.008; Z = −8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). The difference between PSU and DG-SU was not significant (Z = −2.21, P = 0.03).

Conclusion(s)

There are, above all, two techniques of sperm preparation which allow for the recovery of spermatozoa with the lowest DNA fragmentation rate. Furthermore, given low costs and reduced time, we believe that PSU is the best option in the treatment of semen samples during IVF/ICSI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brandeis VT, Manuel MT. Effects of four methods of sperm preparation on the motile concentration, morphology, and acrosome status of recovered sperm from normal semen samples. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10(6):409–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ren SS, Sun GH, Ku CH, Chen DC, Wu GJ. Comparison of four methods for sperm preparation for IUI. Arch Androl. 2004;50(3):139–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barroso G, Chaya M, Bolaños R, Rosado Y, García León F, Ibarrola E. Prognostic value on recovery rates for the application of sperm preparation techniques and their evaluation in sperm function. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2005;73(5):221–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Spano M, Jepson K, Bungum L, Giwercman A. The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1401–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Borini A, Tarozzi N, Bizzaro D, Bonu MA, Fava L, Flamigni C, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation: paternal effect on early post-implantation embryo development in ART. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2876–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrell DT, Liu L, Peterson CM, Jones KP, Hatasaka HH, Erickson L, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation is increased in couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Arch Androl. 2003;49:49–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duran EH, Morshedi M, Taylor S, Oehninger S. Sperm DNA quality predicts intrauterine insemination outcome: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3122–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1039–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seli E, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Moffatt O, Sakkas D. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:378–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de la Calle JF V, Muller A, Walschaerts M, Clavere JL, Jimenez C, Wittemer C, et al. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as assessed by the sperm chromatin dispersion test in assisted reproductive technology programs: results of a large prospective multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):1792–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zini A, Boman JM, Belzile E, Ciampi A. Sperm DNA damage is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2663–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Henkel R. Sperm preparation: state-of-the-art-physiological aspects and application of advanced sperm preparation methods. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:260–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jayaraman V, Upadhya D, Narayan PK, Adiga SK. Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:557–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez JL, Muriel L, Goyanes V, Segrelles E, Gosàlvez J, Enciso M, et al. Simple determination of human sperm DNA fragmentation with an improved sperm chromatin dispersion test. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:833–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chohan KR, Griffin JT, Lafromboise M, De Jonge CJ, Carrell DT. Comparison of chromatin assays for DNA fragmentation evaluation in human sperm. J Androl. 2006;27:53–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ribas-Maynou J, Garcıa-Peiro A, Fernandez-Encin A, Abad C, Amengual MJ, Prada E, et al. Comprehensive analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation by five different assays: TUNEL assay, SCSA, SCD test and alkaline and neutral Comet assay. Andrology. 2013;1(5):715–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang L, Qiu Y, Wang K, Wang Q, Tao G, Wang L. Measurement of sperm DNA fragmentation using bright-field microscopy: comparison between sperm chromatin dispersion test and terminal uridine nick end labeling assay. Fertil Steril. 2010;24(3):1027–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell SL. Using multivariate statistics. 4thed. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Virro MR, Larson-Cook KL, Evenson DP. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters are related to fertilization, blastocyst development, and ongoing pregnancy in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tesarik J, Greco E, Mendoza C. Late, but not early, paternal effect on human embryo development is related to sperm DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):611–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erenpreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):174–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernández JL, Muriel L, Rivero MT, Goyanes V, Vazquez R, Alvarez JG. The sperm chromatin dispersion test: a simple method for the determination of sperm DNA fragmentation. J Androl. 2003;24(1):59–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feijo CM, Esteves SC. Diagnostic accuracy of sperm chromatin dispersion test to evaluate sperm deoxyribonucleic acid damage in men with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tandara M, Bajić A, Tandara L, Bilić-Zulle L, Šunj M, Kozina V, et al. Sperm DNA integrity testing: big halo is a good predictor of embryo quality and pregnancy after conventional IVF. Andrology. 2014;2(5):678–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Amiri I, Ghorbani M, Hesmati S. Comparison of the DNA fragmentation and the sperm parameters after processing by the density gradient and the swim up methods. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6(9):1451–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ghaleno LR, Valojerdi MR, Janzamin E, Chehrazi M, Sharbatoghli M, Yazdi RS. Evaluation of conventional semen parameters, intracellular reactive oxygen species, DNA fragmentation and dysfunction of mitochondrial membrane potential after semen preparation techniques: a flow cytometric study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(1):173–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Andros Day Surgery Clinic, Via Ausonia 43/45, 90144, Palermo, Italy

    Aldo Volpes, Francesca Sammartano, Simona Rizzari, Angelo Marino & Adolfo Allegra

  2. Medical Statistics Unit, Andros Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy

    Salvatore Gullo

Authors
  1. Aldo Volpes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Sammartano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simona Rizzari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salvatore Gullo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angelo Marino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adolfo Allegra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aldo Volpes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors of this paper declare that they have no conflict of interest which could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported herein.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector; the funds were provided directly by the ANDROS Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy.

Additional information

Capsule Given lower costs and reduced procedure time, we believe that PSU is the best option in the treatment of semen samples during IVF/ICSI.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Volpes, A., Sammartano, F., Rizzari, S. et al. The pellet swim-up is the best technique for sperm preparation during in vitro fertilization procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet 33, 765–770 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0696-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0696-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation