Vasilescu Steven A, Goss Dale M, Gurner Kathryn H, Kelley Rebecca L, Mazi Maria, De Bond Fabrice K, Lorimer Jennifer, Horta Fabrizzio, Parast Farin Y, Gardner David K, Nosrati Reza, Warkiani Majid E
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia; IVF Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Reprod Biomed Online. 2025 Feb;50(2):104433. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104433. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
Can a biomimetic microfluidic sperm sorter isolate motile sperm while minimizing DNA damage in comparison with density gradient centrifugation (DGC)?
This was a two-phase study of 61 men, consisting of a proof-of-concept study with 21 donated semen samples in a university research laboratory, followed by a diagnostic andrology study with 40 consenting patients who presented at a fertility clinic for semen diagnostics. Each sample was split to perform DGC and microfluidic sperm selection (one-step sperm selection with 15 min of incubation) side-by-side. Outcomes evaluated included concentration, progressive motility, and DNA fragmentation index (DFI) of raw semen, and sperm isolated using DGC and the microfluidic device. Results were analysed using Friedman's test for non-parametric data (significant when P < 0.05). DFI values were assessed by sperm chromatin dispersion assay.
Sperm isolated using DGC and the microfluidic device showed improved DFI values and motility compared with the raw semen sample in both cohorts. However, the microfluidic device was significantly better than DGC at reducing DFI values in both the proof-of-concept study (P = 0.012) and the diagnostic andrology study (P < 0.001). Progressive motility was significantly higher for sperm isolated using the microfluidic device in the proof-of-concept study (P = 0.0061) but not the diagnostic andrology study. Sperm concentration was significantly lower for samples isolated using the microfluidic device compared with DGC for both cohorts (P < 0.001).
Channel-based biomimetic sperm selection can passively select motile sperm with low DNA fragmentation. When compared with DGC, this method isolates fewer sperm but with a higher proportion of progressively motile cells and greater DNA integrity.
与密度梯度离心法（DGC）相比，一种仿生微流控精子分选仪能否分离出活动精子，同时将DNA损伤降至最低？
这是一项针对61名男性的两阶段研究，包括在大学研究实验室对21份捐赠精液样本进行的概念验证研究，随后是对40名在生育诊所进行精液诊断的同意参与的患者进行的诊断男科学研究。每个样本均被分开，并行进行DGC和微流控精子分选（一步式精子分选，孵育15分钟）。评估的结果包括原始精液、使用DGC和微流控装置分离出的精子的浓度、进行性运动能力和DNA碎片化指数（DFI）。使用Friedman检验对非参数数据进行分析（P < 0.05时具有显著性）。通过精子染色质扩散试验评估DFI值。
在两个队列中，与原始精液样本相比，使用DGC和微流控装置分离出的精子均显示出改善的DFI值和运动能力。然而，在概念验证研究（P = 0.012）和诊断男科学研究（P < 0.001）中，微流控装置在降低DFI值方面均显著优于DGC。在概念验证研究中，使用微流控装置分离出的精子的进行性运动能力显著更高（P = 0.0061），但在诊断男科学研究中并非如此。与DGC相比，两个队列中使用微流控装置分离出的样本的精子浓度均显著更低（P < 0.001）。
基于通道的仿生精子分选可以被动地选择具有低DNA碎片化的活动精子。与DGC相比，这种方法分离出的精子较少，但具有较高比例的进行性运动细胞和更好的DNA完整性。
