TABLE 8.
DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa selected by microfluidic devices.
| Specie of study | Groups compared | DNA fragmentation (%) | Type of male donors/patients (n) | Fragmentation technique | References |
| Human | Control | 10.9 | Healthy donors (8) | SCSA | Nosrati et al., 2014 |
| Microfluidic radial 500 channels in parallel | 4.32/3.37/2.40 | ||||
| Human | Control | 27.7 ± 0a | Donors (10) normal, oligozoospermia, and asthenozoospermia | SCD | Kishi et al., 2015 |
| SU | 8.3 ± 0.05b | ||||
| Sperm sorter qualis | 5.9 ± 0.04c | ||||
| Human | DGC-SU | 10.1 ± 8.5 | Donors (37) | SCSA | Shirota et al., 2016 |
| Sperm sorter qualis | 0.8 ± 1.9∗ | ||||
| Bovine | Unsorted | 7.08 ± 1.06 | 7 | TUNEL | Nagata et al., 2018 |
| Microfluid DMSS | 0.37 ± 0.15∗∗ | 12 | |||
| Human | Control | 15 (11–19)∗∗∗ | Samples (70) | SCD | Quinn et al., 2018 |
| DGC-SU | 6 (3–11.5)∗∗∗ | ||||
| Fertile (Zymot) device | 0 (0–2.4) | ||||
Analyses of DNA fragmentation were conducted by sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, or TUNEL. Values of % of DNA fragmentation are expressed as % ± SEM or SD. In Nosrati et al. (2014), DNA fragmentation separated by slash corresponds to the microchannel lengths 6/7.5/9 mm, respectively. Negative linear correlation between microchannel lengths was reported (R2 = 0.99). ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001. Different letters indicate differences between groups (P < 0.005).