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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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