Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1083–1089 | Cite as

The effect of swim-up and gradient sperm preparation techniques on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation in subfertile patients

  • Yuksel Oguz
  • Ismail Guler
  • Ahmet Erdem
  • Mehmet Firat Mutlu
  • Seyhan Gumuslu
  • Mesut Oktem
  • Nuray Bozkurt
  • Mehmet Erdem
Gamete Biology



To compare the effect of two different sperm preparation techniques, including swim-up and gradient methods on sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation status of semen samples from unexplained and mild male factor subfertile patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).


A prospective randomized study was conducted in 65 subfertile patients, including 34 unexplained and 31 male factor infertility to compare basal and post-procedure DNA fragmentation rates in swim-up and gradient techniques. Sperm DNA fragmentation rates were evaluated by a sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test in two portions of each sample of semen that was prepared with either swim-up or gradient techniques. Sperm motility and morphology were also assessed based on WHO 2010 criteria.


Swim-up but not gradient method yielded a statistically significant reduction in the DNA fragmented sperm rate after preparation as compared to basal rates, in the semen samples of both unexplained (41.85 ± 22.04 vs. 28.58 ± 21.93, p < 0.001 for swim-up; and 41.85 ± 22.04 vs. 38.79 ± 22.30, p = 0.160 for gradient) and mild male factor (46.61 ± 19.38 vs. 30.32 ± 18.20, p < 0.001 for swim-up and 46.61 ± 19.38 vs. 44.03 ± 20.87, p = 0.470 for gradient) subgroups.


Swim-up method significantly reduces sperm DNA fragmentation rates and may have some prognostic value on intrauterine insemination in patients with decreased sperm DNA integrity.


Sperm DNA fragmentation DNA integrity Swim-up Gradient Intrauterine insemination Sperm chromatin dispersion 



We thank Gazi University Unit of Scientific Research Projects for supporting our study.

Compliance with ethical standards

The Local Ethical Committee, Board of Clinical Researches of Gazi University, approved the study with an approval number of 200. This study was also registered to Protocol Registration and Results System with an ID of NCT01859520 and title “Swim up and Gradient Methods Used in Assisted Reproduction Techniques on DNA Fragmentation of Spermatozoa”.


  1. 1.
    Fritz MA, Speroff L. Male infertility. In: Fritz MA, Speroff L, editors. Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, A Wolters Kluwer Business; 2011. p. 1249–93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, Korucuoglu U, Karabacak O. Factors affecting live birth rate in intrauterine insemination cycles with recombinant gonadotrophin stimulation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(2):199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oleszczuk K, Augustinsson L, Bayat N, Giwercman A, Bungum M. Prevalence of high DNA fragmentation index in male partners of unexplained infertile couples. Andrology. 2013;1(3):357–60. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alkhayal A, San Gabriel M, Zeidan K, Alrabeeah K, Noel D, McGraw R. Sperm DNA and chromatin integrity in semen samples used for intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(11):1519–24. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samplaski MK, Dimitromanolakis A, Lo KC, Grober ED, Mullen B, Garbens A. The relationship between sperm viability and DNA fragmentation rates. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:42. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evenson D, Wixon R. Meta-analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation using the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12(4):466–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zini A. Are sperm chromatin and DNA defects relevant in the clinic? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57(1–2):78–85. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drobnis EZ, Johnson MH. Are we ready to incorporate sperm DNA-fragmentation testing into our male infertility work-up? A plea for more robust studies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(2):111–2. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bungum M, Humaidan P, Spano M, Jepson K, Bungum L, Giwercman A. The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(6):1401–8. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duran EH, Morshedi M, Taylor S, Oehninger S. Sperm DNA quality predicts intrauterine insemination outcome: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3122–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sakkas D, Alvarez JG. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1027–36. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomson LK, Zieschang JA, Clark AM. Oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in sperm has a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination but not intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):843–7. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xue X, Wang WS, Shi JZ, Zhang SL, Zhao WQ, Shi WH, et al. Efficacy of swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation in improving sperm deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index in semen samples from teratozoospermic patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(9):1161–6. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Younglai EV, Holt D, Brown P, Jurisicova A, Casper RF. Sperm swim-up techniques and DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(9):1950–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Volpes A, Sammartano F, Rizzari S, Gullo S, Marino A, Allegra A. The pellet swim-up is the best technique for sperm preparation during in vitro fertilization procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(6):765–70. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karamahmutoglu H, Erdem A, Erdem M, Mutlu MF, Bozkurt N, Oktem M, et al. The gradient technique improves success rates in intrauterine insemination cycles of unexplained subfertile couples when compared to swim up technique: a prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(9):1139–45. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231–45. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amiri I, Ghorbani M, Heshmati S. Comparison of the DNA fragmentation and the sperm parameters after processing by the density gradient and the swim up methods. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6(9):1451–3. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chenlo PH, Curi SM, Pugliese MN, Ariagno JI, Sardi-Segovia M, Furlan MJ. Fragmentation of sperm DNA using the TUNEL method. Actas Urol Esp. 2014;38(9):608–12. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moskovtsev SI, Willis J, White J, Mullen JB. Sperm DNA damage: correlation to severity of semen abnormalities. Urology. 2009;74(4):789–93. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD004507. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feijo CM, Esteves SC. Diagnostic accuracy of sperm chromatin dispersion test to evaluate sperm deoxyribonucleic acid damage in men with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):58–63 e3. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuksel Oguz
    • 1
  • Ismail Guler
    • 1
  • Ahmet Erdem
    • 1
  • Mehmet Firat Mutlu
    • 2
  • Seyhan Gumuslu
    • 3
  • Mesut Oktem
    • 1
  • Nuray Bozkurt
    • 1
  • Mehmet Erdem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGazi University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyYuksek Ihtisas UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.IVF UnitGazi University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations