Table 1. Summary of the effect on sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) reduction using different strategies. Reprint with permission from Esteves et al. (17).
Method | SDF relative reduction (%) | SDF assay | Study |
---|---|---|---|
Short abstinence | 25 | SCD | Gosálvez et al., 2011 |
22 | TUNEL | Agarwal et al., 2016 | |
Gradient centrifugation | 22–44* | SCD | Gosálvez et al., 2011 |
56.6 | SCD | Xue et al., 2014 | |
Swim-up | 33.3 | SCD | Parmegiani et al., 2010 |
38.1 | SCD | Xue et al., 2014 | |
MACS | 26.7 | TUNEL | Tsung-Hsein et al., 2010 |
None | TUNEL | Nadalini et al., 2014 | |
PICSI | 67.9 | SCD | Parmegiani et al., 2010 |
None | SCSA | Rashki Ghaleno et al., 2016 | |
IMSI | 78.1 | TUNEL | Hammoud et al., 2013 |
None | SCD | Maettner et al., 2014 | |
Testicular sperm | 79.7 | SCD | Esteves et al., 2015 |
79.6 | TUNEL | Greco et al., 2005 | |
66.5 | TUNEL | Moskovtsev et al., 2010 |
*, combined with frequent ejaculation and short ejaculatory abstinence. MACS, magnetic-activated cell sorting; PICSI, physiologic intracytoplasmic sperm injection; IMSI, intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection; TUNEL, terminal deoxyribonucleotide transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labeling; SCD, sperm chromatin dispersion; SCSA, sperm chromatin structure assay.