Cargando…
A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis
PURPOSE: Developing optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36515800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02680-0 |
_version_ | 1784869682416713728 |
---|---|
author | Shapouri, Farnaz Mahendran, Tara Govindarajan, Mirudhubashini Xie, Philip Kocur, Olena Palermo, Gianpiero D. Bakos, Hassan W. Ahlström, Aisling Caisander, Gunilla Xu, Bo Bai, Shun Lambourne, Sarah Aitken, R. John |
author_facet | Shapouri, Farnaz Mahendran, Tara Govindarajan, Mirudhubashini Xie, Philip Kocur, Olena Palermo, Gianpiero D. Bakos, Hassan W. Ahlström, Aisling Caisander, Gunilla Xu, Bo Bai, Shun Lambourne, Sarah Aitken, R. John |
author_sort | Shapouri, Farnaz |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Developing optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving density gradient centrifugation (DGC). METHODS: Five international ART Centres in Australia, India, Sweden, the USA, and China have collaborated in order to compare the quality of the sperm populations isolated by Felix™ and DGC in terms of processing time, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and DNA integrity as assessed by 3 methods: SCSA, Halo, and TUNEL. RESULTS: Across all centers, 112 comparisons were performed. Although significant differences were noted between centers in terms of the quality of the semen samples subjected for analysis, overall, both methods were equally capable of isolating populations of spermatozoa exhibiting high levels of vitality and progressive motility. The absolute numbers of spermatozoa recovered were significantly (p < 0.001) lower with the Felix™ device although sperm quality was higher with 4/5 centers reporting a significant improvement in DNA integrity relative to DGC (p < 0.01–p < 0.001). In practical terms, the Felix™ device featured a standardized 6 min preparation time whereas clinical DGC protocols varied from center to center but generally took around 40 min to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The Felix™ device is a positive technical development capable of isolating suspensions of highly motile spermatozoa exhibiting low levels of DNA damage in a fraction of the time taken by conventional procedures such as DGC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9840737 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98407372023-01-16 A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis Shapouri, Farnaz Mahendran, Tara Govindarajan, Mirudhubashini Xie, Philip Kocur, Olena Palermo, Gianpiero D. Bakos, Hassan W. Ahlström, Aisling Caisander, Gunilla Xu, Bo Bai, Shun Lambourne, Sarah Aitken, R. John J Assist Reprod Genet Gamete Biology PURPOSE: Developing optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving density gradient centrifugation (DGC). METHODS: Five international ART Centres in Australia, India, Sweden, the USA, and China have collaborated in order to compare the quality of the sperm populations isolated by Felix™ and DGC in terms of processing time, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and DNA integrity as assessed by 3 methods: SCSA, Halo, and TUNEL. RESULTS: Across all centers, 112 comparisons were performed. Although significant differences were noted between centers in terms of the quality of the semen samples subjected for analysis, overall, both methods were equally capable of isolating populations of spermatozoa exhibiting high levels of vitality and progressive motility. The absolute numbers of spermatozoa recovered were significantly (p < 0.001) lower with the Felix™ device although sperm quality was higher with 4/5 centers reporting a significant improvement in DNA integrity relative to DGC (p < 0.01–p < 0.001). In practical terms, the Felix™ device featured a standardized 6 min preparation time whereas clinical DGC protocols varied from center to center but generally took around 40 min to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The Felix™ device is a positive technical development capable of isolating suspensions of highly motile spermatozoa exhibiting low levels of DNA damage in a fraction of the time taken by conventional procedures such as DGC. Springer US 2022-12-14 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9840737/ /pubmed/36515800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02680-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Gamete Biology Shapouri, Farnaz Mahendran, Tara Govindarajan, Mirudhubashini Xie, Philip Kocur, Olena Palermo, Gianpiero D. Bakos, Hassan W. Ahlström, Aisling Caisander, Gunilla Xu, Bo Bai, Shun Lambourne, Sarah Aitken, R. John A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title | A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title_full | A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title_short | A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
title_sort | comparison between the felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis |
topic | Gamete Biology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36515800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02680-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shapourifarnaz acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT mahendrantara acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT govindarajanmirudhubashini acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT xiephilip acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT kocurolena acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT palermogianpierod acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT bakoshassanw acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT ahlstromaisling acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT caisandergunilla acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT xubo acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT baishun acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT lambournesarah acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT aitkenrjohn acomparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT shapourifarnaz comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT mahendrantara comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT govindarajanmirudhubashini comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT xiephilip comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT kocurolena comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT palermogianpierod comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT bakoshassanw comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT ahlstromaisling comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT caisandergunilla comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT xubo comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT baishun comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT lambournesarah comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis AT aitkenrjohn comparisonbetweenthefelixelectrophoreticsystemofspermisolationandconventionaldensitygradientcentrifugationamulticentreanalysis |