Glass wool filter preparation of cryopreserved spermatozoa

Abstract

Oligozoospermic and asthenozoospermic semen ejaculates, as well as cryopreserved sperm samples prepared by the wash and swimup procedure often result in unsatisfactory sperm recovery rates. In this study the glass wool filter and the wash and swim-up preparation procedures were compared on the basis of their 'effective' (number of live sperm per millilitre) recovery rates. The glass wool filter procedure consistantly produced significantly (P= 0.0002) higher viable sperm concentrations, making it the preferred method for the preparation of cryopreserved sperm to be used in assisted reproduction techniques. The use of this preparation procedure has also been shown to have no adverse affect on the fertilizing potential of human spermatozoa in our unit.

Sperm preparation through Sephadex™ filtration improves in vitro fertilization rate of buffalo oocytes

“…Finally, the sperm were capable of fertilizing buffalo oocytes in vitro, displaying cleavage rates similar to those processed through swim-up method. Our results are in line with those of previous studies where improvement in sperm quality using GWF was reported in dog, human and bovine (Anzar & Graham, 1996;Anzar et al, 1997;Coetzee, Erasmus, Kruger, Menkveld, & Lombard, 1994;Gunay, Zekariya, & Kemal, 2004;Vyas et al, 1992), while fertilization rates were found comparable in bovine sperm prepared by glass wool filtration and swim-up (Stubbings & Wosik, 1991). (Samper et al, 1995).…”

A comparative study of Sephadex, glass wool and Percoll separation techniques on sperm quality and IVF results for cryopreserved bovine semen

“…Filtration through a Sephadex column [1,2,21] and isolation by density gradient centrifugation in Percoll [27,35] have allowed improvements in the quality of bovine semen. In cases of high viscosity [34,46], poor semen quality [23] or cryopreserved ejaculates [8], the glass wool filtration method has proved to be advantageous [12]. …”

“…However, comparative data concerning the effectiveness of biophysical treatment methods such as Sephadex, glass wool and Percoll in cryopreserved bovine semen has been lacking, although previous experiments have established that various semen manipulation techniques increase the qualitative features of spermatozoa [8,23,27,35]. Also, very few reports are available regarding IVF results of spermatozoa isolated by Sephadex and glass wool filtration despite their excellent ability to improve sperm quality in post-thaw bovine and other species semen [46].…”

An Update on Semen Physiology, Technologies, and Selection Techniques for the Advancement of In Vitro Equine Embryo Production: Section II

“…In humans, spermatozoa separated with GWF yield a sample enriched for motility, morphologically normal spermatozoa, and good chromatin condensation, as well as having a high recovery rate and good cleavage and blastocyst rates [ 97 , 98 ]. GWF was also shown to produce a sufficient number of cells, with better recovery than SU, for insemination with frozen-thawed spermatozoa [ 99 ]. In an experiment with bovine sperm comparing DGC and GWF, GWF was capable of enriching motility, membrane integrity, and GWF-selected sperm used for IVF resulted in higher cleavage and blastocyst rates than control samples [ 100 ].…”