|
 |
|
LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
|
|
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 15
| Issue : 4 | Page : 402 |
| |
Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?
Vishan Dev Singh Jamwal
Department of Anatomy, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India
| Date of Submission | 28-Aug-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 22-Oct-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 13-Dec-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vishan Dev Singh Jamwal
Department of Anatomy, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_126_22
How to cite this article:
Jamwal VD. Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?. J Hum Reprod Sci 2022;15:402 |
How to cite this URL:
Jamwal VD. Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?. J Hum Reprod Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 4];15:402. Available from: https://www.jhrsonline.org/text.asp?2022/15/4/402/363484 |
I read with interest the original article on microfluidics published in the August issue of your esteemed journal. Compliments to the authors and editor for bringing up such interesting original articles of this nature in your esteemed journal. Newer innovative methods introduced in the assisted reproduction technologies evoke keen interest and much speculation for future directions. However, the practical applications of the newer innovative modalities are fraught with challenges. Microfluidics deals with manipulation of microliter quantities of fluid and is widely applied to flow of spermatozoa, oocytes and embryos in a single direction.[1] The basic underlying principle is parallel laminar flow of mirovolumes of fluid. The microfluidic device has a great advantage in concentrating motile spermatozoa in semen samples containing debris.[2] Moreover, sperm DNA fragmentation from density gradient and swim up semen processing methods may adversely impact embryo development up to blastocyst stage and lower clinical pregnancies rates.[3],[4],[5]
The outcome measures adopted in the study were biochemical pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates. It would have been appropriate if the authors had also included ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates as outcome measures for better understanding and comparison of different methods of semen processing.
The major disadvantage of microfluidics is its failure to process complete semen sample due to limited capacities which are best suited for microliter or nanolitre quantities.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
 References | |  |
| 1. | Cho BS, Schuster TG, Zhu X, Chang D, Smith GD, Takayama S. Passively driven integrated microfluidic system for separation of motile sperm. Anal Chem 2003;75:1671-5.  |
| 2. | Schuster TG, Cho B, Keller LM, Takayama S, Smith GD. Isolation of motile spermatozoa from semen samples using microfluidics. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:75-81. |
| 3. | Seli E, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Moffatt O, Sakkas D. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004;82:378-83. |
| 4. | Muratori M, Tarozzi N, Carpentiero F, Danti S, Perrone FM, Cambi M, et al. Sperm selection with density gradient centrifugation and swim up: Effect on DNA fragmentation in viable spermatozoa. Sci Rep 2019;9:7492. |
| 5. | Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, Ona K, Demirci U, Cedars MI, et al. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1388-93. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
