Volume 16, Issue 7 (July 2018)                   IJRM 2018, 16(7): 463-468 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Heidari M, Lakpour N, Darbandi M, Darbandi S, Shani S, Goharbakhsh L, et al . Upstream or swim up processing technique: which one is more effective to select human sperm with high chromatin integrity. IJRM. 2018; 16 (7) :463-468
URL: http://journals.ssu.ac.ir/ijrmnew/article-1-1172-en.html
1- Department of Embryology and Andrology, Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Embryology and Andrology, Avicenna Infertility Clinic, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Monoclonal Antibody Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute (ARI), ACECR, Tehran, Iran , sadeghi@avicenna.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2721 Views)
Background: Sperm processing methods separate motile sperms with good morphology from dead and abnormal forms of sperms, immature germ cells, and non-sperm cells.
Objective: The propose of this study was to compare the efficacy of upstream and swim-up processing techniques to separate sperms with the high quality especially in relation to sperm chromatin integrity.
Materials and Methods: This experimental study used semen samples from 60 normozoospermic men. Specimens were divided into equal aliquots for processing by swim up (group A), and upstream (group B) methods and compare with control by raw semen (group C). Sperm concentration, morphology, motility, DNA fragmentation and chromatin maturation were measured in these three groups.
Results: The results revealed that sperm concentration in the swim up samples was significantly greater than upstream samples (p≤0.04). as addition, motile sperm recovery including the percentage of progressive motility and a total number of motile sperm was better in the swim-up compared to an upstream method and raw semen (p≤0.001). The cell debris and seminal fluid were equally removed by both methods and the percentage of normal forms was also similar in both procedures (p≥0.4). In addition, sperm DNA fragmentation and chromatin maturation were not significantly different between the three groups (p≥0.1).
Conclusion: According to results, apparently the upstream method had no significant efficiency to separate good quality sperms compare to swim up. Therefore, swim up seems to be a simple, inexpensive, reliable and widely available method with an efficient yield to separate motile sperm with good morphology and better chromatin integrity for insemination in the infertility clinics.
Full-Text [PDF 453 kb]   (424 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (131 Views)  
Type of Study: Short Research Reports |

1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1506-1512. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem046]
2. Van Balen F, Gerrits T. Quality of infertility care in poor-resource areas and the introduction of new reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 215-219. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/16.2.215]
3. Nachtigall RD. International disparities in access to infertility services. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 871-875. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.066]
4. Ombelet W, Campo R. Affordable IVF for developing countries. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15: 257-265. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60337-9]
5. Sakkas D. Novel technologies for selecting the best sperm for in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1023-1029. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.025]
6. Jayaraman V, Upadhya D, Narayan PK, Adiga SK. Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29: 557-563. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-012-9742-x]
7. Ricci G, Perticarari S, Boscolo R, Montico M, Guaschino S, Presani G. Semen preparation methods and sperm apoptosis: swim-up versus gradient-density centrifugation technique. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 632-638. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.068]
8. Sadeghi MR, Hodjat M, Lakpour N, Arefi S, Amirjannati N, Modarresi T, et al. Effects of sperm chromatin integrity on fertilization rate and embryo quality following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol 2009; 1: 173-180.
9. Takeshima T, Yumura Y, Kuroda S, Kawahara T, Uemura H, Iwasaki A. Effect of density gradient centrifugation on reactive oxygen species in human semen. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2017; 63: 192-198. [DOI:10.1080/19396368.2017.1294214]
10. Yumura Y, Takeshima T, Kawahara T, Sanjo H, Kuroda SN, Asai T, et al. Reactive oxygen species measured in the unprocessed semen samples of 715 infertile patients. Reprod Med Biol 2017; 16: 354-363. [DOI:10.1002/rmb2.12052]
11. Henkel RR, Schill W-B. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2003; 1: 108. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-1-108]
12. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 1980; 210: 1131-1133. [DOI:10.1126/science.7444440]
13. Organization WH. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed Geneva; 2010.
14. Sivanarayana T, Ravi Krishna C, Jaya Prakash G, Krishna KM, Madan K, Sudhakar G, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation assay by sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD): correlation between DNA fragmentation and outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reprod Med Biol 2013; 13: 87-94. [DOI:10.1007/s12522-013-0168-7]
15. Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology 2000; 56: 1081-1084. [DOI:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00770-6]
16. Henkel RR, Schill W-B. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2003; 1: 1-22. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-1-108]
17. Abed F, Zadehmodarres S. A comparative study of swim-up and upstream methods for isolating sperm cell for intra uterine insemination. Int J Women's Health Reprod Sci 2015; 3: 103-106. [DOI:10.15296/ijwhr.2015.20]
18. Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Tomlinson M, Mandrioli M, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, et al. The use of two 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]
19. Li Z, Wang L, Cai J, Huang H. Correlation of sperm DNA damage with IVF and ICSI outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2006; 23: 367-376. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-006-9066-9]
20. Malvezzi H, Sharma R, Agarwal A, Abuzenadah AM, Abu-Elmagd M. Sperm quality after density gradient centrifugation with three commercially available media: a controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 121-127. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-12-121]

Send email to the article author

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb