Does conventional freezing affect sperm DNA fragmentation?
10.5653/cerm.2019.46.2.67
- Author:
Minh Tam LE
1
;
Thai Thanh Thi NGUYEN
;
Tung Thanh NGUYEN
;
Trung Van NGUYEN
;
Tam An Thi NGUYEN
;
Quoc Huy Vu NGUYEN
;
Thanh Ngoc CAO
Author Information
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam. leminhtam@huemed-univ.edu.vn
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cryopreservation;
DNA fragmentation;
Freezing;
Halosperm test;
Spermatozoa
- MeSH:
Acrosome;
Chromatin;
Cryopreservation;
DNA Fragmentation;
DNA;
Freezing;
Humans;
Infertility, Male;
Male;
Membranes;
Reproductive Techniques, Assisted;
Semen;
Semen Analysis;
Sperm Head;
Sperm Motility;
Spermatozoa;
Tail
- From:Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
2019;46(2):67-75
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: Sperm cryopreservation has been widely used in assisted reproductive technology, as it offers great potential for the treatment of some types of male infertility. However, cryopreservation may result in changes in membrane lipid composition and acrosome status, as well as reductions in sperm motility and viability. This study aimed to evaluate sperm DNA fragmentation damage caused by conventional freezing using the sperm chromatin dispersion test. METHODS: In total, 120 fresh human semen samples were frozen by conventional methods, using SpermFreeze Solution as a cryoprotectant. Routine semen analysis and a Halosperm test (using the Halosperm kit) were performed on each sample before freezing and after thawing. Semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation were compared between these groups. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in sperm progressive motility, viability, and normal morphology after conventional freezing (32.78%, 79.58%, and 3.87% vs. 16%, 55.99%, and 2.55%, respectively). The sperm head, midpiece, and tail defect rate increased slightly after freezing. Furthermore, the DNA fragmentation index (DFI) was significantly higher after thawing than before freezing (19.21% prior to freezing vs. 22.23% after thawing). Significant increases in the DFI after cryopreservation were observed in samples with both normal and abnormal motility and morphology, as well as in those with normal viability. CONCLUSION: Conventional freezing seems to damage some sperm parameters, in particular causing a reduction in sperm DNA integrity.
