2015
DOI: 10.7860/jcdr/2015/10332.6811
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Frequency of Sperm DNA Fragmentation According to Selection Method: Comparison and Relevance of a Microfluidic Device and a Swim-up Procedure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nosrati et al (2014) reported the improvement of human spermatozoa selected by a microfluidic device composed of 500 parallel microchannels in terms of reducing more than 80% DNA fragmentation. Similar results were reported by Kishi et al (2015), showing a significant reduction of DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa selected by a commercially available device based on microfluidics and flow dynamics (Sperm Sorter Qualis ® , Menicon, Kasugai, Japan) when compared to SU or unselected spermatozoa. Using the same device, Shirota et al (2016) also reported the selection of spermatozoa with lower DNA fragmentation compared to spermatozoa selected by DGC followed by SU in healthy donors.…”
Section: Sperm Selection Based On Sperm Motility (Microfluidics)supporting
confidence: 85%
“…Nosrati et al (2014) reported the improvement of human spermatozoa selected by a microfluidic device composed of 500 parallel microchannels in terms of reducing more than 80% DNA fragmentation. Similar results were reported by Kishi et al (2015), showing a significant reduction of DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa selected by a commercially available device based on microfluidics and flow dynamics (Sperm Sorter Qualis ® , Menicon, Kasugai, Japan) when compared to SU or unselected spermatozoa. Using the same device, Shirota et al (2016) also reported the selection of spermatozoa with lower DNA fragmentation compared to spermatozoa selected by DGC followed by SU in healthy donors.…”
Section: Sperm Selection Based On Sperm Motility (Microfluidics)supporting
confidence: 85%
“…No clinical ART data was reported. Other studies revealed that the use of microfluidic devices resulted in the selection of sperm with reduced DNA damage in comparison to the swim-up technique ( Kishi et al ., 2015 ; Shirota et al ., 2016 ). The group of men studied, however, was small, heterogeneous, and included both fertile and infertile individuals, thus preventing solid conclusions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Newer technologies, such as microfluidics, electrophoresis, motile sperm organelle morphology examination (MSOME), and birefringence have been advocated for processing human semen [54]. One example is that the microfluidic device was used to select spermatozoa with better chromatin fragmentation, as evaluated by the DNA dispersion test, from oligospermic human samples [55]. However, such methods are too expensive and impractical to be considered for processing animal semen.…”
Section: Additional Selection Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%