Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods
Microfluidics and microfilter devices have been developed to mimic the characteristics of the female reproductive tract, minimizing the risk of sperm damage. This study aimed to compare the use of a microfilter device versus conventional methods for sperm selection used in in vitro fertilization (IV...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Andrologia 2022-12, Vol.54 (11), p.e14585-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e14585 |
| container_title | Andrologia |
| container_volume | 54 |
| creator | Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi Rodriguez, Misael Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi Rivas, Josselin Huayhua, Carmen Mellisho, Edwin |
| description | Microfluidics and microfilter devices have been developed to mimic the characteristics of the female reproductive tract, minimizing the risk of sperm damage. This study aimed to compare the use of a microfilter device versus conventional methods for sperm selection used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). For selecting spermatozoa, the pooled samples were processed in a microfilter device, swim‐up and mini‐Percoll gradient. Kinematic and morphometric parameters, vitality and DNA damage were analysed before and after sperm selection. After selection, 10,000 motile spermatozoa per oocyte were used in IVF drops. Embryos were assessed at three (cleavage rate) and seven (blastocyst rate) days post‐IVF. Results of sperm kinematic parameters including average path velocity, velocity straight line, curvilinear velocity, linearity, lateral head displacement with the microfilter device were superior to density gradient (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/and.14585 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2714063891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2742886557</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2205-2d71e29d5db819ce45a90432e9abb4bcc09eb100224327f8ef20bd576d8a1d563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EElXpgX9giQsc0tqOHSfcqvKUChwo58ixN6qrPIqdFPXf4xBOSMxlpdU3q9lB6JKSOQ1aqMbMKRepOEETyuMsIkyyUzQhMYkjLpLsHM2835EgLqTkfII273twNfZQge5s2-AO9Laxnz14bBusVddVcItfrHZtaasOHDZwsBrwAZzvPdZtc4BmsKoK19BtW-Mv0FmpKg-z3zlFHw_3m9VTtH57fF4t15FmjIiIGUmBZUaYIqWZBi5URnjMIFNFwQutSQYFJYSxsJRlCiUjhREyMamiRiTxFF2Pd_euHRJ3eW29hqpSDbS9z5mknCRxmtGAXv1Bd23vQuaB4ixNEyFkoG5GKnzrvYMy3ztbK3fMKcmHivNQcf5TcWAXI_tlKzj-D-bL17vR8Q1XI30E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2742886557</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi ; Rodriguez, Misael ; Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi ; Rivas, Josselin ; Huayhua, Carmen ; Mellisho, Edwin</creator><creatorcontrib>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi ; Rodriguez, Misael ; Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi ; Rivas, Josselin ; Huayhua, Carmen ; Mellisho, Edwin</creatorcontrib><description>Microfluidics and microfilter devices have been developed to mimic the characteristics of the female reproductive tract, minimizing the risk of sperm damage. This study aimed to compare the use of a microfilter device versus conventional methods for sperm selection used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). For selecting spermatozoa, the pooled samples were processed in a microfilter device, swim‐up and mini‐Percoll gradient. Kinematic and morphometric parameters, vitality and DNA damage were analysed before and after sperm selection. After selection, 10,000 motile spermatozoa per oocyte were used in IVF drops. Embryos were assessed at three (cleavage rate) and seven (blastocyst rate) days post‐IVF. Results of sperm kinematic parameters including average path velocity, velocity straight line, curvilinear velocity, linearity, lateral head displacement with the microfilter device were superior to density gradient (p < 0.05), but similar to swim‐up method. Likewise, sperm DNA damage was significantly reduced using the microfilter device and swim‐up method. Regarding the total sperm recovery rate post selection, results with the microfilter device (17.64%) and mini‐Percoll gradient (18.27%) were higher than with swim‐up method (6.52%). However, the cleavage and blastocyst rates were the lowest using the microfilter device. In conclusion, sperm selection using the microfilter device and swim‐up method can improve kinematic parameters, although the mini Percoll gradient was the most efficient method for embryo production.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0303-4569</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1439-0272</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/and.14585</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>blastocyst rate ; DNA damage ; Embryos ; In vitro fertilization ; Kinematics ; microfilter device ; Microfluidics ; Reproductive system ; Sperm ; sperm selection ; Velocity</subject><ispartof>Andrologia, 2022-12, Vol.54 (11), p.e14585-n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 Wiley‐VCH GMbH.</rights><rights>2022 Wiley‐VCH GmbH</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2205-2d71e29d5db819ce45a90432e9abb4bcc09eb100224327f8ef20bd576d8a1d563</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8950-0700 ; 0000-0003-3992-6735 ; 0000-0001-7171-1991 ; 0000-0003-3321-362X ; 0000-0002-9342-7067 ; 0000-0002-4170-0412</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fand.14585$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fand.14585$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Misael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivas, Josselin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huayhua, Carmen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellisho, Edwin</creatorcontrib><title>Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods</title><title>Andrologia</title><description>Microfluidics and microfilter devices have been developed to mimic the characteristics of the female reproductive tract, minimizing the risk of sperm damage. This study aimed to compare the use of a microfilter device versus conventional methods for sperm selection used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). For selecting spermatozoa, the pooled samples were processed in a microfilter device, swim‐up and mini‐Percoll gradient. Kinematic and morphometric parameters, vitality and DNA damage were analysed before and after sperm selection. After selection, 10,000 motile spermatozoa per oocyte were used in IVF drops. Embryos were assessed at three (cleavage rate) and seven (blastocyst rate) days post‐IVF. Results of sperm kinematic parameters including average path velocity, velocity straight line, curvilinear velocity, linearity, lateral head displacement with the microfilter device were superior to density gradient (p < 0.05), but similar to swim‐up method. Likewise, sperm DNA damage was significantly reduced using the microfilter device and swim‐up method. Regarding the total sperm recovery rate post selection, results with the microfilter device (17.64%) and mini‐Percoll gradient (18.27%) were higher than with swim‐up method (6.52%). However, the cleavage and blastocyst rates were the lowest using the microfilter device. In conclusion, sperm selection using the microfilter device and swim‐up method can improve kinematic parameters, although the mini Percoll gradient was the most efficient method for embryo production.</description><subject>blastocyst rate</subject><subject>DNA damage</subject><subject>Embryos</subject><subject>In vitro fertilization</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>microfilter device</subject><subject>Microfluidics</subject><subject>Reproductive system</subject><subject>Sperm</subject><subject>sperm selection</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><issn>0303-4569</issn><issn>1439-0272</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EElXpgX9giQsc0tqOHSfcqvKUChwo58ixN6qrPIqdFPXf4xBOSMxlpdU3q9lB6JKSOQ1aqMbMKRepOEETyuMsIkyyUzQhMYkjLpLsHM2835EgLqTkfII273twNfZQge5s2-AO9Laxnz14bBusVddVcItfrHZtaasOHDZwsBrwAZzvPdZtc4BmsKoK19BtW-Mv0FmpKg-z3zlFHw_3m9VTtH57fF4t15FmjIiIGUmBZUaYIqWZBi5URnjMIFNFwQutSQYFJYSxsJRlCiUjhREyMamiRiTxFF2Pd_euHRJ3eW29hqpSDbS9z5mknCRxmtGAXv1Bd23vQuaB4ixNEyFkoG5GKnzrvYMy3ztbK3fMKcmHivNQcf5TcWAXI_tlKzj-D-bL17vR8Q1XI30E</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi</creator><creator>Rodriguez, Misael</creator><creator>Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi</creator><creator>Rivas, Josselin</creator><creator>Huayhua, Carmen</creator><creator>Mellisho, Edwin</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8950-0700</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3992-6735</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7171-1991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3321-362X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-7067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4170-0412</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods</title><author>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi ; Rodriguez, Misael ; Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi ; Rivas, Josselin ; Huayhua, Carmen ; Mellisho, Edwin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2205-2d71e29d5db819ce45a90432e9abb4bcc09eb100224327f8ef20bd576d8a1d563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>blastocyst rate</topic><topic>DNA damage</topic><topic>Embryos</topic><topic>In vitro fertilization</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>microfilter device</topic><topic>Microfluidics</topic><topic>Reproductive system</topic><topic>Sperm</topic><topic>sperm selection</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Misael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivas, Josselin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huayhua, Carmen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellisho, Edwin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Andrologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vega‐Hidalgo, Jhorjhi</au><au>Rodriguez, Misael</au><au>Dipaz‐Berrocal, Deysi</au><au>Rivas, Josselin</au><au>Huayhua, Carmen</au><au>Mellisho, Edwin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods</atitle><jtitle>Andrologia</jtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e14585</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e14585-n/a</pages><issn>0303-4569</issn><eissn>1439-0272</eissn><abstract>Microfluidics and microfilter devices have been developed to mimic the characteristics of the female reproductive tract, minimizing the risk of sperm damage. This study aimed to compare the use of a microfilter device versus conventional methods for sperm selection used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). For selecting spermatozoa, the pooled samples were processed in a microfilter device, swim‐up and mini‐Percoll gradient. Kinematic and morphometric parameters, vitality and DNA damage were analysed before and after sperm selection. After selection, 10,000 motile spermatozoa per oocyte were used in IVF drops. Embryos were assessed at three (cleavage rate) and seven (blastocyst rate) days post‐IVF. Results of sperm kinematic parameters including average path velocity, velocity straight line, curvilinear velocity, linearity, lateral head displacement with the microfilter device were superior to density gradient (p < 0.05), but similar to swim‐up method. Likewise, sperm DNA damage was significantly reduced using the microfilter device and swim‐up method. Regarding the total sperm recovery rate post selection, results with the microfilter device (17.64%) and mini‐Percoll gradient (18.27%) were higher than with swim‐up method (6.52%). However, the cleavage and blastocyst rates were the lowest using the microfilter device. In conclusion, sperm selection using the microfilter device and swim‐up method can improve kinematic parameters, although the mini Percoll gradient was the most efficient method for embryo production.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/and.14585</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8950-0700</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3992-6735</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7171-1991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3321-362X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-7067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4170-0412</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0303-4569 |
| ispartof | Andrologia, 2022-12, Vol.54 (11), p.e14585-n/a |
| issn | 0303-4569 1439-0272 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2714063891 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | blastocyst rate DNA damage Embryos In vitro fertilization Kinematics microfilter device Microfluidics Reproductive system Sperm sperm selection Velocity |
| title | Sperm selection techniques in cattle: Microfilter device versus conventional methods |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T20%3A06%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sperm%20selection%20techniques%20in%20cattle:%20Microfilter%20device%20versus%20conventional%20methods&rft.jtitle=Andrologia&rft.au=Vega%E2%80%90Hidalgo,%20Jhorjhi&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e14585&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e14585-n/a&rft.issn=0303-4569&rft.eissn=1439-0272&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/and.14585&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2742886557%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2742886557&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |