Assessing the potential of HSPA2 and ADAM2 as two biomarkers for human sperm selection.

Selection of the best sperm, with the least defects, is a critical factor in the success of ART especially in male factor infertility. This study assessed the potential Heat shock protein (HSPA2) and metallopeptidase domain2 (ADAM2) biomarkers for sperm selection. Sperm were obtained from 72 asthenoteratozoospermic and 42 normospermic ejaculates. The semen characteristic, DNA fragmentation (DFI), chromatin maturation index (CMI), ADAM2 and HSPA2 levels on sperm, and their correlation with embryo quality were assessed in both groups. Results showed the significant reduction in HSPA2 and ADAM2 in asthenoteratozoospermic compared to normazoospermic ejaculates regarding the cut-off value of 14 and 13% for these two biomarkers. The specificity of HSPA2 and ADAM2 separately, and the combination of these two biomarkers, were 95.2, 90.5 and 93.5%, respectively, for sperm from normozoospermic ejaculates. However, they were 48.6, 50.0 and 54.5% for asthenoteratozoospermic ones. A significant correlation was observed with HSPA2, ADAM2 and a combination of these two biomarkers with CMI, DFI and embryo quality. Although a combination of these two biomarkers have the potential to be a good choice for selecting sperm with the lowest level of chromatin damage, it seems that selection according to HSPA2 has priority over ADAM2 or a combination of the two.

Upstream or swim up processing technique: which one is more effective to select human sperm with high chromatin integrity.

BACKGROUND: Sperm processing methods separate motile sperms with good morphology from dead and abnormal forms of sperms, immature germ cells, and non-sperm cells. OBJECTIVE: The propose of this study was to compare the efficacy of upstream and swim-up processing techniques to separate sperms with the high quality especially in relation to sperm chromatin integrity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This experimental study used semen samples from 60 normozoospermic men. Specimens were divided into equal aliquots for processing by swim up (group A), and upstream (group B) methods and compare with control by raw semen (group C). Sperm concentration, morphology, motility, DNA fragmentation and chromatin maturation were measured in these three groups. RESULTS: The results revealed that sperm concentration in the swim up samples was significantly greater than upstream samples (p≤0.04). as addition, motile sperm recovery including the percentage of progressive motility and a total number of motile sperm was better in the swim-up compared to an upstream method and raw semen (p≤0.001). The cell debris and seminal fluid were equally removed by both methods and the percentage of normal forms was also similar in both procedures (p≥0.4). In addition, sperm DNA fragmentation and chromatin maturation were not significantly different between the three groups (p≥0.1). CONCLUSION: According to results, apparently the upstream method had no significant efficiency to separate good quality sperms compare to swim up. Therefore, swim up seems to be a simple, inexpensive, reliable and widely available method with an efficient yield to separate motile sperm with good morphology and better chromatin integrity for insemination in the infertility clinics.