scholarly journals Sperm DNA fragmentation index does not correlate with the sperm or embryo aneuploidy rate in recurrent miscarriage or implantation failure patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1922-1929 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Bronet ◽  
E. Martinez ◽  
M. Gaytan ◽  
A. Linan ◽  
D. Cernuda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Recurrent Miscarriage ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Aneuploidy Rate ◽  
Fragmentation Index ◽  
Sperm Dna ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation Index ◽  
Dna Fragmentation Index

DETERMINATION OF THE HUMAN SPERM DNA FRAGMENTATION INDEX

Vestnik ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 226-232
Author(s):  
К. К. Тлеуханов ◽  
Н. А. Алтыбаева ◽  
М. К. Отарбаев ◽  
Е. М. Тойшибеков ◽  
А. А. Тлеуханова
Keyword(s):  
Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Human Sperm ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Fragmentation Index ◽  
Sperm Dna ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation Index ◽  
Dna Fragmentation Index

В статье представлены собранные данные о методах устранения повышенной частоты фрагментации ДНК у сперматозоидов, которые в некоторых исследованиях подтверждают, что введение антиоксидантов может снизить уровень фрагментации ДНК у сперматозоидов. The article presents collected data on methods of eliminating the increased frequency of DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa, which in some studies confirm that the introduction of antioxidants can reduce the level of DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa.

O-212 MACS vs TESA for raised sperm DNA fragmentation index – a RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K C Mantravadi ◽  
D R Gedela
Keyword(s):  
Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Sperm Selection ◽  
Reproductive Outcomes ◽  
Fragmentation Index ◽  
Sperm Dna ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation Index ◽  
Dna Fragmentation Index

Abstract Study question In Individuals with raised Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index (SDF), will sperm selection by magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) or surgical retrieval of testicular sperms (TESA) optimize the reproductive outcomes? Summary answer Couples with failed implantation raised SDF, TESA /MACS offer similar results. This RCT doesn’t prove superiority or added benefit with any of the above interventions. What is known already It is evident that raised SDF negatively affects the reproductive outcomes. Management for raised SDF to optimize reproductive outcomes is still elusive. Study design, size, duration This was a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) with prior approval from institutional Ethical Committee and trial registration. Couples undergoing stimulation with raised SDF were randomized to MACS (n = 75) and TESA (n = 75) for sperm selection between April2019 & February2020. Participants/materials, setting, methods Couples with history of one failed IVF had SDF testing and SDF>30% were recruited. SDF test done with SCSA method and randomized using software. ICSI was the method of insemination. Extended embryo culture till blastocyst was done and freeze all policy was opted. Two Blastocysts that showed 100% survival were transferred in a Frozen Embryo transfer (FET) cycle. Embryonic and Reproductive outcomes were compared between both groups. Live birth and Miscarriage were the primary outcomes. Main results and the role of chance Reproductive Outcomes of MACS Vs TESA were: Average Blastocyst conversion - 32% Vs 39% (RR 1.22, CI1.00 to 1.50) Implantation rate (IR) - 50% Vs 35% (RR - 0.71, CI 0.51 to 0.98) Miscarriage rate (MR) - 5.3% Vs 11% (RR1.6333, CI 0.5227 to 5.1039) Multiple Pregnancy rate (MPR) - 8% Vs 4% Live birth Rate (LBR) per Intention to treat (ITT) - 41.3% Vs 44% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26) LBR per ET cycle - 63% Vs 56% (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.94) Our preliminary results suggest that despite greater availability of blastocysts for transfer in the TESA group, no difference in ART outcomes was observed between the groups. Though the IR was statistically low with TESA, our primary outcomes LBR and MR were comparable. TESA or MACS seem to offer similar outcomes. Considering the invasiveness with TESA, MACS can be offered for better sperm selection for couples with raised sperm DFI & failed implantation. Limitations, reasons for caution Small sample size. TESA is a surgical intervention Wider implications of the findings Optimal intervention for management of SDF still needs further research. Trial registration number CTRI/2019/07/020140

313 ASSESSMENT OF SPERM DNA FRAGMENTATION IN CANINE EJACULATES USING THE Sperm-Halomax® KIT: PRELIMINARY RESULTS

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 312 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hidalgo ◽  
M. R. Murabito ◽  
M. J. Gálvez ◽  
S. Demyda ◽  
L. J. De Luca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Sperm Concentration ◽  
Semen Parameters ◽  
Sperm Chromatin ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation ◽  
Fragmentation Index ◽  
Sperm Dna ◽  
Commercial Kit ◽  
Sperm Dna Fragmentation Index ◽  
Dna Fragmentation Index

Recently, a new procedure for the analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation has been developed for humans and different mammalian species, using a commercial kit based on the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test; however, a descriptive study in canine semen has not been performed. The aim of this work was to assess the sperm DNA fragmentation in canine ejaculates using the SCD test and 2 different staining techniques. For this purpose, ejaculates were collectedby digital manipulation from4 healthy dogs of different breeds (1 German Pointer, 2 Spanish Greyhounds, and 1 Crossbreed). After collection, the sperm-rich fraction of the ejaculates from 3 dogs were pooled each time (n = 4) and then extended in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline. All the pooled semen samples presented physiological values concerning routine semen parameters (motility, morphology, and sperm concentration). The sperm DNA fragmentation was assessed using the Sperm-Halomax® commercial kit specifically developed for canine semen (Halotech DNA SL, Madrid, Spain). Two semen aliquots of the diluted pooled semen samples were processed on each pre-treated slide provided in the kit following the manufacturer’s instructions. The last step was the staining technique. We stained each slide with 2 different staining procedures. The first half of the slide was stained with propidium iodide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) mixed in a proportion 1 : 1 with an antifading solution. The second half of the slide was stained for 15 min in Wright solution (1.01383.0500, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) 1 :1 in Phosphate Buffer pH 6.88 (1.07294.1000, Merck). The stained slides were observed using fluorescence and light microscopy, respectively. Five hundred sperm per slide were counted. Spermatozoa with fragmented DNA showed a large and spotty halo of chromatin dispersion. Unfragmented sperm only showed a small and compact halo. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science version 12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The sperm DNA fragmentation index was compared between Wright and fluorescence staining methods by ANOVA. Results were expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean. The first report of the sperm DNA fragmentation index in canine ejaculates was 2.26 ± 0.53% for Wright staining and 1.99 ± 0.10% for fluorescence technique. No differences were found between staining procedures. In conclusion, it was possible to assess the sperm DNA fragmentation of canine ejaculates using 2 different staining procedures, expecting that continuous research could be useful in defining the role of DNA fragmentation SCD test in canine semen evaluation and cryopreservation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document