Sperm Selection and Embryo Development: A Comparison of the Density Gradient Centrifugation and Microfluidic Chip Sperm Preparation Methods in Patients with Astheno-Teratozoospermia

Microfluidic sperm sorting selects a subpopulation of high-quality sperm with a higher potential for fertilization

STUDY QUESTION

Is a microfluidic sperm sorter (MSS) able to select higher quality sperm compared to conventional methods?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The MSS selects sperm with improved parameters, lower DNA fragmentation, and higher fertilizing potential.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

To date, the few studies that have compared microfluidics sperm selection with conventional methods have used heterogeneous study population and have lacked molecular investigations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The efficiency of a newly designed MSS in isolating high-quality sperm was compared to the density-gradient centrifugation (DGC) and swim-up (SU) methods, using 100 semen samples in two groups, during 2023-2024.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Semen specimens from 50 normozoospermic and 50 non-normozoospermic men were sorted using MSS, DGC, and SU methods to compare parameters related to the quality and fertilizing potential of sperm. The fertilizing potential of sperm was determined by measurement of phospholipase C zeta (PLCζ) and post-acrosomal sheath WW domain-binding protein (PAWP) expression using flow cytometry, and the chromatin dispersion test was used to assess sperm DNA damage.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In both normozoospermic and non-normozoospermic groups, the MSS-selected sperm with the highest progressive motility, PLCζ positive expression and PLCζ and PAWP fluorescence intensity the lowest non-progressive motility, and minimal DNA fragmentation, compared to sperm selected by DGC and SU methods (P < 0.05).

LIMITATION, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The major limitations of our study were the low yield of sperm in the MSS chips and intentional exclusion of severe male factor infertility to yield a sufficient sperm count for molecular experiments; thus testing with severe oligozoospermic semen and samples with low count and motility is still required. In addition, due to ethical considerations, at present, it was impossible to use the sperm achieved from MSS in the clinic to assess the fertilization rate and further outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our research presents new evidence that microfluidic sperm sorting may result in the selection of high-quality sperm from raw semen. This novel technology might be a key to improving clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction in infertile patients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study is funded by the Iran University of Medical Sciences and no competing interest exists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Microfluidics: The future of sperm selection in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Obtaining functional sperm cells is the first step to treat infertility. With the ever-increasing trend in male infertility, clinicians require access to effective solutions that are able to single out the most viable spermatozoa, which would max out the chance for a successful pregnancy. The new generation techniques for sperm selection involve microfluidics, which offers laminar flow and low Reynolds number within the platforms can provide unprecedented opportunities for sperm selection. Previous studies showed that microfluidic platforms can provide a novel approach to this challenge and since then researchers across the globe have attacked this problem from multiple angles.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we seek to provide a much-needed bridge between the technical and medical aspects of microfluidic sperm selection. Here, we provide an up-to-date list on microfluidic sperm selection procedures and its application in assisted reproductive technology laboratories.

SEARCH METHOD

A literature search was performed in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus to select papers reporting microfluidic sperm selection using the keywords: microfluidic sperm selection, self-motility, non-motile sperm selection, boundary following, rheotaxis, chemotaxis, and thermotaxis. Papers published before March 31, 2023 were selected.

OUTCOMES

Our results show that most studies have used motility-based properties for sperm selection. However, microfluidic platforms are ripe for making use of other properties such as chemotaxis and especially rheotaxis. We have identified that low throughput is one of the major hurdles to current microfluidic sperm selection chips, which can be solved via parallelization.

CONCLUSION

Future work needs to be performed on numerical simulation of the microfluidics chip prior to fabrication as well as relevant clinical assessment after the selection procedure. This would require a close collaboration and understanding among engineers, biologists, and medical professionals. It is interesting that in spite of two decades of microfluidics sperm selection, numerical simulation and clinical studies are lagging behind. It is expected that microfluidic sperm selection platforms will play a major role in the development of fully integrated start-to-finish assisted reproductive technology systems.

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The microfluidic sperm selection (MFSS) device has emerged as a promising adjunct in assisted reproduction treatments (ART). It employs mechanisms of biomimicry based on the microanatomy of the female reproductive tract through strategies like chemotaxis and rheotaxis. Numerous studies assert improvements in ART outcomes with the use of MFSS, often attributed to the theoretical reduction in sperm DNA damage compared to other techniques. However, these attributed benefits lack validation through large-scale clinical trials, and there is no significant evidence of enhanced assisted reproductive treatments (ART) outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the utilization of MFSS enhances clinical pregnancy results and abortion outcomes in couples undergoing ART compared to standard sperm selection techniques for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI). We also assessed laboratory outcomes as a supplementary analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches across databases including PubMed, NIH, LILACS, CENTRAL, Crossref, Scopus, and OpenAlex. A total of 1,255 records were identified. From these, 284 duplicate records were eliminated, and an additional 895 records were excluded due to their association with patent applications, diagnostic tests, forensic analyses, or irrelevance to the research focus. Among the initially eligible 76 studies, 63 were excluded, encompassing abstracts, studies lacking adequate control groups, and ongoing clinical trials. Ultimately, 13 studies were selected for inclusion in the ensuing meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Regarding clinical pregnancy, we assessed a total of 868 instances of clinical pregnancies out of 1,646 embryo transfers. Regarding miscarriage, we examined 95 cases of pregnancy loss among the 598 confirmed clinical pregnancies in these studies.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of MFSS demonstrates marginal positive outcomes compared to standard sperm selection techniques, without statistical significance in any of the analyses.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS

This study conducted the first meta-analysis to evaluate clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, and laboratory results associated with the use of MFSS compared to standard sperm selection techniques. We have also listed potentially eligible studies for future inclusion. It's important to emphasize the need for multicenter studies with standardized parameters to attain a more robust clarification of this issue.

Effects of sperm separation methods before intrauterine insemination on pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates: Differences between the swim-up and microfluidic chip techniques

Various sperm preparation techniques have been developed to obtain functionally, genetically and morphologically high-quality competent spermatozoa for use in assisted reproductive technologies, which may affect treatment options and thus pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates. We aimed to compare swim-up washing procedure (SWP) and microfluidics sperm sorting (MSS) with regard to sperm separation, pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates in infertile couples receiving intrauterine insemination. A total of 326 couples with unexplained infertility who underwent intrauterine insemination were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study and were divided into 2 groups according to sperm preparation technique. The MSS and SWP methods were used to prepare sperm in 178 and 148 patients, respectively. The median sperm concentration reduced significantly from 51 (30-100) million/mL to 20 (10-40) million/mL in the MSS group, and from 45 (26-80) million/mL to 25 (11-48) million/mL in the SWP group (both P < .001). Median motility increased significantly from 30.43 ± 17.79 to 57.48 ± 20.24 in the MSS, and from 32.89 ± 13.92 to 43.91 ± 20.11 in SWP (both P < .001). There was a difference between groups after preparation regarding sperm concentration (better with SWP) and motility (better with MSS) (P = .018 and P < .001, respectively). A total of 86 (26.4%) pregnancies were observed in participants and the clinical pregnancy rate was 23% in the MSS group and 30.4% in the SWP group (P = .133). Fifty-one infants were born alive and a great majority (n = 47) were delivered at term. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher duration of infertility was independently associated with lower live birth success (odds ratio: 0.811, 95% confidence interval: 0.662-0.996; P = .045). Other variables, including female age, type and reason of infertility, number of cycles, and sperm motility and concentration, were found to be nonsignificant (P > .05). We observed nonsignificant worse reproductive results using microfluid sperm selection in comparison to the pellet swim-up technique (live birth rate = 12% vs 20%). Our evidence is of limited quality due to the retrospective design of this study and sufficiently powered RCTs are needed to evaluate whether sperm selection based using a microfluidic chip is better, similar, or worse than the pellet swim-up technique.

Analysis of selected sperm samples by a computer-assisted system with high frame rate: A prospective study

Background and Aims

Due to the rapid motility of the selected sperm, sperm parameters cannot be accurately determined by the manual method. So, the application of a computer-assisted sperm analysis system with a high frame rate (HFR-CASA, 85 Hz) in sperm selection is investigated.

Methods

A total of 177 semen samples were collected for sperm selection with density gradient centrifugation. Then, the manual method and HFR-CASA method will be used to observe and analyze the sperm concentration, motility, and percentage of progressively motile sperm (PR) of the selected sperm samples. The quality control of sperm concentration was performed with microballoons. Two selected sperm samples were analyzed 10 times repeatedly to evaluate the accuracy of the HFR-CASA.

Results

The results of microballoons analyzed with the HFR-CASA were in control. The coefficients of variation of sperm concentration, motility, and PR from two selected sperm samples were all below 10%. The results of 177 selected sperm samples analyzed by the manual method and HFR-CASA showed that although there were significant positive correlations in sperm concentration, motility, and PR between them (p < 0.001), the manual method significantly underestimated sperm concentration (p = 0.002) but overestimated sperm motility and PR (p < 0.001). When sperm concentration was below 50 × 10⁶/mL, the manual method significantly overestimated sperm concentration (p < 0.05). However, when sperm concentration was more than 100 × 10⁶/mL, the manual method significantly underestimated sperm concentration (p < 0.001). Regardless of sperm concentration, the manual method consistently overestimated sperm motility and PR (p < 0.001). When sperm concentration was more than 20 × 10⁶/mL, there was no correlation in sperm PR between them (p > 0.05). When sperm concentration was below 50 × 10⁶/mL, the correct rate of captured sperm by the HFR-CASA was more than 98%.

Conclusion

The HFR-CASA method is more accurate than the manual method in analyzing the selected sperm samples.