Efficiency of sperm separation by using microfluidic chips compared to the swim up method
References
- Williams M, Thompson LA, Li TC, Mackenna A, Barratt CL, Cooke ID. Uterine flushing: a method to recover spermatozoa and leukocytes. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(6):925-8; DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep. a138168.
- Pinto S, Carrageta DF, Alves MG, Rocha A, Agarwal A, Barros A, Oliveira PF. Sperm selection strategies and their impact on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Andrologia. 2021;53(2):e13725; DOI:10.1111/and.13725.
- Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure andrology lab corner assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J Androl. 2002;23(1):25-43; DOI:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02599.x.
- Lewis SE, Aitken RJ, Conner SJ, Iuliis GD, Henkel R, Giwercman A, Gharagozloo P. The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Reprod Biomed. 2013;27(4):325-37; DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.06.014.
- Yetkinel S, Kilicdag EB, Aytac PC, Haydardedeoglu B, Simsek E, Cok T. Effects of the microfluidic chip technique in sperm selection for intracytoplasmic sperm injection for unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Ass Reprod Gen. 2019;36(3):403-9; DOI:10.1007/s10815-018-1375-2.
- 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;33(8):1388-93; DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey239.
- Tasoglu S, Safaee H, Zhang X, Kingsley JL, Catalano PN, Gurkan UA, Nureddin A, Kayaalp E, Anchan RM, Maas RL, Tuzel E, Demirci U. Exhaustion of racing sperm in nature-mimicking microfluidic channels during sorting. Small. 2013;9:3374-84; DOI:10.1002/smll.201300020.
- World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. 276 p.
- Ješeta M, Boženková E, Žáková J, Ventruba P, Crha I, Lousová E, Coufalová P, Kempisty B. Magnetic-activated cell sorting in combination with swim-up efficiency improve effectivity of spermatozoa separation. Med J Cell Biol. 2018;6(2):55-60; DOI:10.2478/acb-2018-0010.
- Pujianto DA, Oktarina M, Sharma Sharaswati IA, Yulhasri. Hydrogen peroxide has adverse effects on human sperm quality parameters, induces apoptosis, and reduces survival. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2021;14(2):121-8; DOI:10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_241_2010.4103/jhrs.jhrs_241_20.
- Kishi K, Ogata H, Ogata S, Mizusawa Y, Okamoto E, Matsumoto Y, Kokeguchi S, Shiotani M. Frequency of sperm DNA fragmentation according to selection method: Comparison and relevance of a microfluidic device and a swim-up procedure. J Clin Diag Res. 2015;9(11):14-6; DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2015/10332.6811.
- 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;33(8):1388-93; DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey239.
- Gotsiridze K, Nana M, Mariam M, Tamar J. Live motile sperm sorting device improves embryo aneuploidy: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Reprod. 2024;6(03):117-22; DOI:10.1142/s2661318224500166.
- Banti M, Van Zyl E, Kafetzis D. Sperm preparation with microfluidic sperm sorting chip may improve intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes compared to density gradient centrifugation. Reprod Sci. 2024;31(6):1695-704; DOI:10.1007/s43032-024-01483-1.
- 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;67(2):137-43; DOI:10.1080/19396368.20 20.1837994.
- Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56(6):1081-4; DOI:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00770-6.
- Feyzioglu BS, Avul Z. Effects of sperm separation methods before intrauterine insemination on pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates: differences between the swim-up and microfluidic chip techniques. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(46):e36042; DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000036042.
- Romany L, Garrido N, Motato Y, Belén A, Remohí J, Meseguer M. Removal of annexin V – positive cells for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in ovum donation cycles does not improve reproductive outcome: a controlled and randomized trial in unselected males. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1567-75; DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.001.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acb-2025-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2544-3577
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 8
Submitted on: Dec 31, 2024
Accepted on: Feb 4, 2025
Published on: Jun 9, 2025
Published by: Foundation for Cell Biology and Molecular Biology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Related subjects:
© 2025 Michal Ješeta, Lenka Mekiňová, Jan Hošek, Pavel Ventruba, Adéla Doubravská, Igor Crha, published by Foundation for Cell Biology and Molecular Biology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.