A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of In-House Microfluidic Device and Centrifuge-Based Method Efficacy in Sperm Preparation for Assisted Reproductive Technology. | LitMetric

Background: Sperm DNA fragmentation can affect reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), and it is a concern in density gradient centrifugation (DGC). By contrast, microfluidic approaches allow the selection of highly motile sperm with low DNA fragmentation index (DFI). The purpose of current study, was to compare the efficacy of a microfluidic device designed in-house in comparison with DGC.

Methods: Nineteen healthy men with normal semen profiles were included in the study. Semen samples were individually aliquoted for three sperm preparation analyses (crude and processed with to either DGC or the microfluidic method). Sperm parameters of the samples were evaluated along with DNA fragmentation using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL) method.

Results: Sperm processed using the microfluidic method showed a significantly lower DFI than those obtained using DGC and in crude semen, with DFI of 1.1%, 3.5%, and 4.9%, respectively. Although the microfluidic method yielded significantly lower sperm concentrations than DGC, no significant differences were observed in total motility, progressive motility, curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, or normal morphology.

Conclusion: Using the in-house microfluidic device, sperm with lower DFI was effectively isolated when compared with DGC. The motility and normal morphology rates were comparable among the samples.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10402458PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i2.12492DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

microfluidic device
12
dna fragmentation
12
microfluidic method
12
in-house microfluidic
8
sperm
8
sperm preparation
8
assisted reproductive
8
lower dfi
8
microfluidic
7
dgc
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!