Comparison of In-House Microfluidic Device and Centrifuge-Based Method Efficacy in Sperm Preparation for Assisted Reproductive Technology

Tonghathai  Phairatana; Thanaporn  Prateepchaikul; Raphatphorn  Navakanittworakul; Chainarong  Choksuchat

doi:10.18502/jri.v24i2.12492

Tonghathai Phairatana Department of Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
Thanaporn Prateepchaikul Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
Raphatphorn Navakanittworakul Department of Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
Chainarong Choksuchat Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i2.12492

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology, Density gradient centrifugation, DNA fragmentation, Mi-crofluidics, Sperm.

Abstract

Background: Sperm DNA fragmentation can affect reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), and it is a concern in density gradient centrifugation (DGC). By contrast, microfluidic approaches allow the selection of highly motile sperm with low DNA fragmentation index (DFI). The purpose of current study, was to compare the efficacy of a microfluidic device designed in-house in comparison with DGC.

Methods: Nineteen healthy men with normal semen profiles were included in the study. Semen samples were individually aliquoted for three sperm preparation analyses (crude and processed with to either DGC or the microfluidic method). Sperm parameters of the samples were evaluated along with DNA fragmentation using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL) method.

Results: Sperm processed using the microfluidic method showed a significantly lower DFI than those obtained using DGC and in crude semen, with DFI of 1.1%, 3.5%, and 4.9%, respectively. Although the microfluidic method yielded significantly lower sperm concentrations than DGC, no significant differences were observed in total motility, progressive motility, curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, or normal morphology.

Conclusion: Using the in-house microfluidic device, sperm with lower DFI was effectively isolated when compared with DGC. The motility and normal morphology rates were comparable among the samples.