Volume 7, Issue 2 (7-2009)                   IJRM 2009, 7(2): 73-78 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khajavi N A, Razavi S, Mardani M, Tavalaee M, Deemeh M R, Nasr-Esfahani M H. Can Zeta sperm selection method, recover sperm with higher DNA integrity compare to density gradient centrifugation?. IJRM 2009; 7 (2) :73-78
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-141-en.html
Can Zeta sperm selection method, recover sperm with higher DNA integrity compare to density gradient centrifugation?
Noush Afarin Khajavi1 , Shahnaz Razavi1 , Mohammad Mardani1 , Marziyeh Tavalaee2 , Mohammad Reza Deemeh3 , Mohammad Hossein Nasr-Esfahani * 4
1- Department of Anatomy, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2- Department of Andrology and Embryology, Reproductive Medicine Research Center, Royan Institute, (Isfahan Campus), ACECR, Tehran, Iran
3- Isfahan Fertility and Infertility Center, Isfahan, Iran
4- Department of Andrology and Embryology, Reproductive Medicine Research Center, Royan Institute, (Isfahan Campus), ACECR, Tehran, Iran , mh.nasr-esfahani@royaninstitute.org
Abstract:   (2596 Views)
Background: Sperm selection for ICSI based on morphology and motility might not be relevant to chromatin integrity. Thus sperm selection based on sperm characteristics has been suggested.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of Zeta method with routine Density Gradient Centrifugation method (DGC) for the selection of sperm with higher DNA integrity.
Materials and Methods: Semen samples were obtained from 63 individuals referring to Andrology Unit of Isfahan Fertility and Infertility Center. Semen analysis was carried out according to WHO criteria. Each semen sample was divided into three equal portions. One portion was used as control, the second portion was used for Zeta method and the third portion underwent DGC method. Each portion was evaluated to DNA integrity by TUNEL assay. Student t-test was carried out using SPSS and p-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The mean number of sperm DNA fragmentation in Zeta and DGC methods were significantly decreased compare to the control group (p<0.001). In addition, Zeta method was more efficient than the DGC method in the selection of sperm with intact DNA (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The Zeta method appears to be a suitable procedure to recover sperm with normal DNA integrity.
Keywords: Zeta method, Density Gradient Centrifugation method, DNA fragmentation.
Full-Text [PDF 38 kb]   (714 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (460 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992; 340: 17-18. [DOI:10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-F]
2. Celik-Ozenci C, Jakab A, Kovacs T, Catalanotti J, Demir R, Bray-Ward P, et al. Sperm selection for ICSI: shape properties do not predict the absence or presence of numerical chromosomal aberrations. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2052-2059. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh361]
3. Razavi S, Nasr-Esfahani MH, Mardani M. The role of sperm chromatin anomalies on the outcome of assisted reproduction techniques. Yakhteh 2006; 28: 206-266.
4. Paasch U, Grunewald S, Glander HJ. Sperm selection in assisted reproductive techniques. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl 2007; 65: 515-525.
5. Chen MJ, Bongso A. Comparative evaluation of two density gradient preparations for sperm separation for medically assisted conception. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 759-764. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.3.759]
6. Grunewald S, Miska W, Miska G, Rasch M, Reinhardt M, Glander HJ, et al. Molecular glass wool filtration as a new tool for sperm preparation. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1405-1412. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem015]
7. Soderlund B, Lundin K. The use of silane-coated silica particles for Density Gradient Centrifugation in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 857-860. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.4.857]
8. Razavi S, Nasr-Esfahani MH, Mardani M, Mafi A, Moghdam A. Effect of human sperm chromatin anomalies on fertilization outcome post-ICSI. Andrologia 2003; 35: 238-243. [DOI:10.1046/j.1439-0272.2003.00566.x]
9. Tavalaee M, Razavi R, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Influence of sperm chromatin anomalies on assisted reproductive technology outcome. Influence of sperm chromatin anomalies on assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 1119-1126. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.063]
10. Nasr-Esfahani MH, Razavi S, Tavalaee M. Evaluation of sperm selection procedure based on hyaluronic acid binding ability on ICSI outcome. Assiste Reprod Genet 2008; 25: 197-203. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-008-9223-4]
11. Ainsworth C, Nixon B, Aitken RJ. Development of a novel electrophoretic system for the isolation of human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 2261-2270. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dei024]
12. Chan PJ, Jacobson JD, Corselli JU, Patton WC . A simple zeta method for sperm selection based on membrane charge. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 481-486. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1302]
13. Said TM, Agarwal A, Zborowski M, Grunewald S, Glander HJ, Paasch U. Utility of magnetic cell separation as a molecular sperm preparation technique. J Androl 2008; 29: 134-142. [DOI:10.2164/jandrol.107.003632]
14. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
15. Sakkas D, Manicardi G.C. The use of the Density Gradient Centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1112-1116. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.5.1112]
16. Zhang HB, Lu SM, Ma CY, Wang L, Li X, Chen ZJ. Early apoptotic changes in human spermatozoa and their relationships with conventional semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation. J Androl 2008; 10: 227-235. [DOI:10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00295.x]
17. Bedford JM, Bent MJ, Calvin H. Variations in the structural character and stability of the nuclear chromatin in morphologically normal human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertile 1973; 18: 199-213. [DOI:10.1530/jrf.0.0330019]
18. Le Lannou D, Blanchard Y. nuclear maturity and morphology of human spermatozoa selected by percoll density gradient centrifugation or swim-up procedure. J Reprod Fertil 1988; 84: 551-556. [DOI:10.1530/jrf.0.0840551]
19. Nasr-Esfahani MH, Razavi S, Mardani M. Relation between different human sperm nuclear maturity tests and in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001; 18: 219-225. [DOI:10.1023/A:1009412130417]
20. Menkveld R, Rhemrev JP, Franken DR, Vermeiden JP. Acrosomal morphology as a novel criterion for male fertility diagnosis: relation with acrosin activity, morphology (strict criteria), and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 637-644. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58167-9]
21. Nasr-Esfahani MH, Salehi M, Razavi S, Anjomshoa M, Rozbahani S, Moulavi F, et al. Effect of sperm DNA damage and sperm CMA3 staining on fertilization and embryo development post-ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 198-205. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60959-5]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb