TABLE 1.
DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa selected by AV-MACS.
| Groups compared | DNA fragmentation (%) | Type of male donors/patients (n) | References |
| Unsorted | 14.4 ± 13.2a | Donors (35) | Said et al., 2006 |
| Annexin positive | 21 ± 13.6b | ||
| Annexin negative | 9.7 ± 10.6c | ||
| DGC | 13.5 ± 5.6 | Normozoospermic (60) | Lee et al., 2010 |
| DGC/AV-MACS | 9.9 ± 3.6*** | ||
| Unsorted | 29,72 ± 3.41a | Infertile, various etiologies (15) | Tavalaee et al., 2012 |
| DGC | 21,27 ± 3.47b | ||
| AV-MACS | 21,72 ± 3.41b | ||
| DGC/AV-MACS | 17,63 ± 3.72c | ||
| AV-MACS/DGC | 15,27 ± 3.49c | ||
| Unsorted | 17.7 ± 1.6 | Fertile (10), infertile (26): terato- and asthenozoospermia | Zahedi et al., 2013 |
| MACS | 12.1 ± 1.7∗ | ||
| Unsorted | 3.48 ± 4.54a | Infertile, various etiologies (25) | Nadalini et al., 2014 |
| DGC/AV-MACS | 2.41 ± 2.72b | ||
| DGC/SU | 2.1 ± 2.75c | ||
| Unsorted | 12.43 ± 6.29 | Infertile, vaticocele (36) | Degheidy et al., 2015 |
| AV-MACS | 9.61 ± 5.62∗ | ||
| SU | 21.4 ± 16.6 | Normozoospermic (10) | Cakar et al., 2016 |
| SU/AV-MACS | 15 ± 4.9 | ||
| DGC | 18.6 ± 5.8 | ||
| DGC/AV-MACS | 21 ± 6.4 | ||
| SU | 12 ± 16.6 | Oligozoospermic (10) | |
| SU/AV-MACS | 9.4 ± 9.9 | ||
| DGC | 10.6 ± 8.4 | ||
| DGC/AV-MACS | 8.4 ± 6.3 | ||
| Unsorted | 24 (9–26) | Normozoospermic (15) | Berteli et al., 2017 |
| DGC | 10 (5–16) | ||
| DGC/AV-MACS | 6 (3–11) | ||
| AV-MACS/DGC | 4 (2–7) | ||
| AV-MACS | 8 (6–16) | ||
| Unsorted | 9.56 ± 3.39a | Asthenozoospermic (16) | Zhang et al., 2018 |
| DGC | 5.25 ± 1.61b | ||
| DGC/AV-MACS | 2.75 ± 1.2c | ||
DNA fragmentation was analyzed in all cases by TUNEL. Values of % DNA fragmentation are expressed as % ± SEM, SD or (interquartile range). ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗∗P < 0.001 and different letters indicate differences between groups (P < 0.05).