Objective Biomarkers of Sperm Development and Fertility: Assessment of Sperm-Zona Pellucida Binding Ability and Hyaluronic Acid-Mediated Selection of Sperm for ICSI Fertilization



This chapter summarizes the scientific and clinical utility of the nuclear and cytoplasmic sperm biomarkers in the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility. These biomarkers were developed and used by the Yale Sperm Physiology Laboratory in the past 15 years. These biomarkers tested and were proven to reflect the degree of sperm development and fertilizing potential, including cytoplasmic retention measured by sperm creatine kinase content, chromatin structure, the key factor of HSPA2 chaperon protein concentration, DNA chain integrity, chromosomal aneuploidies, sperm head and tail shape and length, and most important, spermiogenetic remodeling of the plasma membrane that is the basis of the sperm-hyaluronic acid-binding assay in the Andrology Laboratory, and of the hyaluronic acid-mediated ICSI sperm selection in the Embryology laboratory. Some aspects of ICSI sperm selection by sperm shape combined with high magnification are also discussed.


Hyaluronic Acid Zona Pellucida Sperm Chromatin Chromosomal Aneuploidy Sperm Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The multiple contributions of Leyla Sati, Ph.D. to the editorial aspects of this article are greatly appreciated.


  1. 1.
    Palermo G, Joris H, et al. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huszar G, Jakab A, et al. Fertility testing and ICSI sperm selection by hyaluronic acid binding: clinical and genetic aspects. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):650–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huszar G, Corrales M, Vigue L. Correlation between sperm creatine phosphokinase activity and sperm concentrations in normospermic and oligospermic men. Gamete Res. 1988;19:67–754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huszar G, Vigue L. Spermatogenesis-related change in the synthesis of the creatine kinase B-type and M-type isoforms in human spermatozoa. Mol Reprod Dev. 1990;25(3):258–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huszar G, Vigue L, et al. Sperm creatine phosphokinase activity as a measure of sperm quality in normospermic, variablespermic, and oligospermic men. Biol Reprod. 1988;38(5):1061–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huszar G, Vigue L. Correlation between the rate of lipid peroxidation and cellular maturity as measured by creatine kinase activity in human spermatozoa. J Androl. 1994;15(1):71–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sbracia M, Grasso J, et al. Hyaluronic acid substantially increases the retention of motility in cryopreserved/thawed human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):1949–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huszar G, Stone K, et al. Putative creatine kinase M-isoform in human sperm is identified as the 70-kilodalton heat shock protein HspA2. Biol Reprod. 2000;63(3):925–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seli E, Sakkas D. Spermatozoal nuclear determinants of reproductive outcome: implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(4):337–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aoki VW, Emery BR, et al. Protamine levels vary between individual sperm cells of infertile human males and correlate with viability and DNA integrity. J Androl. 2006;27(6):890–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perreault SD, Aitken RJ, et al. Integrating new tests of sperm genetic integrity into semen analysis: breakout group discussion. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003;518:253–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bungum M, Humaidan P, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bianchi PG, Manicardi GC, et al. Effect of deoxyribonucleic acid protamination on fluorochrome staining and in situ nick-translation of murine and human mature spermatozoa. Biol Reprod. 1993;49(5):1083–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorczyca W, Traganos F, et al. Presence of DNA strand breaks and increased sensitivity of DNA in situ to denaturation in abnormal human sperm cells: analogy to apoptosis of somatic cells. Exp Cell Res. 1993;207(1):202–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manicardi GC, Bianchi PG, et al. Presence of endogenous nicks in DNA of ejaculated human spermatozoa and its relationship to chromomycin A3 accessibility. Biol Reprod. 1995;52(4):864–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughes CM, Lewis SE, et al. A comparison of baseline and induced DNA damage in human spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men, using a modified comet assay. Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;2(8):613–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernandez JL, Vazquez-Gundin F, et al. DNA breakage detection-FISH (DBD-FISH) in human spermatozoa: technical variants evidence different structural features. Mutat Res. 2000;453(1):77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tomlinson MJ, Moffatt O, et al. Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: implications for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fernandez JL, Muriel L, et al. The sperm chromatin dispersion test: a simple method for the determination of sperm DNA fragmentation. J Androl. 2003;24(1):59–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Virro MR, Larson-Cook KL, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters are related to fertilization, blastocyst development, and ongoing pregnancy in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1289–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sakkas D, Alvarez JG. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1027–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barratt CL, Aitken RJ, et al. Sperm DNA: organization, protection and vulnerability: from basic science to clinical applications–a position report. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):824–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borini A, Tarozzi N, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation: paternal effect on early post-implantation embryo development in ART. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(11):2876–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, et al. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980;210(4474):1131–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evenson DP. Flow cytometry of acridine orange stained sperm is a rapid and practical method for monitoring occupational exposure to genotoxicants. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986;207:121–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Evenson DP. Flow cytometric analysis of male germ cell quality. Methods Cell Biol. 1990;33:401–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Evenson D, Jost L. Sperm chromatin structure assay: DNA denaturability. Methods Cell Biol. 1994;42(Pt B):159–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evenson D, Jost L, et al. Comparative sperm chromatin structure assay measurements on epiillumination and orthogonal axes flow cytometers. Cytometry. 1995;19(4):295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evenson DP, Larson KL, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J Androl. 2002;23(1):25–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larson KL, DeJonge CJ, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters as predictors of failed pregnancy following assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(8):1717–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larson-Cook KL, Brannian JD, et al. Relationship between the outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques and sperm DNA fragmentation as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(4):895–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gandini L, Lombardo F, et al. Full-term pregnancies achieved with ICSI despite high levels of sperm chromatin damage. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(6):1409–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bungum M, Humaidan P, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spano M, Seli E, et al. The significance of sperm nuclear DNA strand breaks on reproductive outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17(3):255–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zini A, Libman J. Sperm DNA damage: clinical significance in the era of assisted reproduction. CMAJ. 2006;175(5):495–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in defining the efficacy of sperm preparation techniques. J Androl. 1988;9(6):367–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alvarez JG, Touchstone JC, et al. Spontaneous lipid peroxidation and production of hydrogen peroxide and superoxide in human spermatozoa. Superoxide dismutase as major enzyme protectant against oxygen toxicity. J Androl. 1987;8(5):338–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Cellular basis of defective sperm function and its association with the genesis of reactive oxygen species by human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil. 1987;81(2):459–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spano M, Cordelli E, et al. Nuclear chromatin variations in human spermatozoa undergoing swim-up and cryopreservation evaluated by the flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure assay. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5(1):29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, et al. The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(5):1112–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morrell JM, Moffatt O, et al. Reduced senescence and retained nuclear DNA integrity in human spermatozoa prepared by density gradient centrifugation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(6):217–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sati L, Ovari L, et al. Double probing of human spermatozoa for persistent histones, surplus cytoplasm, apoptosis and DNA fragmentation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(4):570–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huszar G, Vigue L, et al. Sperm creatine kinase activity in fertile and infertile oligospermic men. J Androl. 1990;11(1):40–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huszar G, Vigue L. Incomplete development of human spermatozoa is associated with increased creatine phosphokinase concentration and abnormal head morphology. Mol Reprod Dev. 1993;34(3):292–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Huszar G, Vigue L, et al. Creatine kinase immunocytochemistry of human sperm-hemizona complexes: selective binding of sperm with mature creatine kinase-staining pattern. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(1):136–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Griveau JF, Le Lannou D. Effects of antioxidants on human sperm preparation techniques. Int J Androl. 1994;17(5):225–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Donnelly ET, McClure N, et al. Glutathione and hypotaurine in vitro: effects on human sperm motility, DNA integrity and production of reactive oxygen species. Mutagenesis. 2000;15(1):61–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chi HJ, Kim JH, et al. Protective effect of antioxidant supplementation in sperm-preparation medium against oxidative stress in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(5):1023–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Donnelly ET, Steele EK, et al. Assessment of DNA integrity and morphology of ejaculated spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men before and after cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1191–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Steele EK, McClure N, et al. A comparison of DNA damage in testicular and proximal epididymal spermatozoa in obstructive azoospermia. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5(9):831–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Greco E, Scarselli F, et al. Efficient treatment of infertility due to sperm DNA damage by ICSI with testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):226–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Suganuma R, Yanagimachi R, et al. Decline in fertility of mouse sperm with abnormal chromatin during epididymal passage as revealed by ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3101–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ward WS, Coffey DS. DNA packaging and organization in mammalian spermatozoa: comparison with somatic cells. Biol Reprod. 1991;44(4):569–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Braun RE. Packaging paternal chromosomes with protamine. Nat Genet. 2001;28(1):10–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dadoune JP. The nuclear status of human sperm cells. Micron. 1995;26(4):323–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Filatov MV, Semenova EV, et al. Relationship between abnormal sperm chromatin packing and IVF results. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5(9):825–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Steger K. Transcriptional and translational regulation of gene expression in haploid spermatids. Anat Embryol (Berl). 1999;199(6):471–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Huszar G, Ozenci CC, et al. Hyaluronic acid binding by human sperm indicates cellular maturity, viability, and unreacted acrosomal status. Fertil Steril. 2003;79 Suppl 3:1616–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Aoki VW, Moskovtsev SI, et al. DNA integrity is compromised in protamine-deficient human sperm. J Androl. 2005;26(6):741–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ramos L, van der Heijden GW, et al. Incomplete nuclear transformation of human spermatozoa in oligo-astheno-teratospermia: characterization by indirect immunofluorescence of chromatin and thiol status. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):259–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Miller D, Brinkworth M, et al. Paternal DNA packaging in spermatozoa: more than the sum of its parts? DNA, histones, protamines and epigenetics. Reproduction. 2010;139(2):287–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Aoki VW, Carrell DT. Human protamines and the developing spermatid: their structure, function, expression and relationship with male infertility. Asian J Androl. 2003;5(4):315–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ovari L, Sati L, et al. Double probing individual human spermatozoa: aniline blue staining for persistent histones and fluorescence in situ hybridization for aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(7):2255–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Carrell DT, Emery BR, et al. Altered protamine expression and diminished spermatogenesis: what is the link? Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(3):313–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ergur AR, Dokras A, et al. Sperm maturity and treatment choice of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: diminished sperm HspA2 chaperone levels predict IVF failure. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(5):910–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cayli S, Jakab A, et al. Biochemical markers of sperm function: male fertility and sperm selection for ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(4):462–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Allen JW, Dix DJ, et al. HSP70-2 is part of the synaptonemal complex in mouse and hamster spermatocytes. Chromosoma. 1996;104(6):414–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dix DJ, Allen JW, et al. Targeted gene disruption of Hsp70-2 results in failed meiosis, germ cell apoptosis, and male infertility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(8):3264–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Eddy EM. Role of heat shock protein HSP70-2 in spermatogenesis. Rev Reprod. 1999;4(1):23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huszar G, Vigue L, et al. Sperm creatine phosphokinase M-isoform ratios and fertilizing potential of men: a blinded study of 84 couples treated with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(4):882–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kovanci E, Kovacs T, et al. FISH assessment of aneuploidy frequencies in mature and immature human spermatozoa classified by the absence or presence of cytoplasmic retention. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1209–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Huszar G, Sbracia M, et al. Sperm plasma membrane remodeling during spermiogenetic maturation in men: relationship among plasma membrane beta 1,4-galactosyltransferase, cytoplasmic creatine phosphokinase, and creatine phosphokinase isoform ratios. Biol Reprod. 1997;56(4):1020–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Worrilow K, Eld S, et al. Prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial evaluating the use of hyaluronan-bound sperm in ICSI: statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes. In: ASRM annual meeting, Orlando, FL; 2011.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Worrilow KC, Eid S, et al. Use of hyaluronan in the selection of sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): significant improvement in clinical ­outcomes–multicenter, double-blinded and randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):306–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gergely A, Kovanci E, et al. Morphometric assessment of mature and diminished-maturity human spermatozoa: sperm regions that reflect differences in maturity. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(8):2007–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Celik-Ozenci C, Jakab A, et al. Sperm selection for ICSI: shape properties do not predict the absence or presence of numerical chromosomal aberrations. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2052–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Celik-Ozenci C, Catalanotti J, et al. Human sperm maintain their shape following decondensation and denaturation for fluorescent in situ hybridization: shape analysis and objective morphometry. Biol Reprod. 2003;69(4):1347–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Simon L, Lutton D, et al. Sperm DNA damage measured by the alkaline Comet assay as an independent predictor of male infertility and in vitro fertilization success. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):652–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ebner T, Moser M, et al. Presence, but not type or degree of extension, of a cytoplasmic halo has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behaviour. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2406–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zini A, Boman JM, et al. Sperm DNA damage is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2663–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Avendano C, Franchi A, et al. DNA fragmentation of normal spermatozoa negatively impacts embryo quality and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):549–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Menezo Y, Dale B, et al. DNA damage and repair in human oocytes and embryos: a review. Zygote. 2010;18(4):357–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Simon L, Brunborg G, et al. Clinical significance of sperm DNA damage in assisted reproduction outcome. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(7):1594–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Jakab A, Sakkas D, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel selection method for sperm with normal frequency of chromosomal aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1665–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Antinori M, Licata E, et al. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(6):835–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Franco Jr JG, Baruffi RL, et al. Significance of large nuclear vacuoles in human spermatozoa: implications for ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(1):42–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Souza Setti A, Ferreira RC, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome versus intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcome: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21(4):450–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Garolla A, Fortini D, et al. High-power microscopy for selecting spermatozoa for ICSI by physiological status. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):610–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Boitrelle F, Ferfouri F, et al. Large human sperm vacuoles observed in motile spermatozoa under high magnification: nuclear thumbprints linked to failure of chromatin condensation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1650–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cayli S, Sakkas D, et al. Cellular maturity and apoptosis in human sperm: creatine kinase, caspase-3 and Bcl-XL levels in mature and diminished maturity sperm. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(5):365–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Perdrix A, Travers A, et al. Assessment of acrosome and nuclear abnormalities in human spermatozoa with large vacuoles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):47–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Simpson JL, Lamb DJ. Genetic effects of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):239–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, et al. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991–1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983–1999). Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):671–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, et al. Efficiency of hyaluronic acid (HA) sperm selection. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(1):13–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Worrilow K, Huynh H. The clinical impact associated with the use of PICSI derived embryos. In: Annual meeting of ASRM, Atlanta; 2009.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Sanchez M, Aran B, et al. Preliminary clinical and FISH results on hyaluronic acid sperm selection to improve ICSI. 21st Annual meeting of European Society for Human Reproduction & Embryology (ESHRE), 19–22 June, Copenhagen, Denmark. Hum Reprod. 2005;20 Suppl 1:556.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Janssens R, Verheyen G, et al. Use of PICSI dishes for sperm selection in clinical ICSI practice: results of a pilot study. In: Annual meeting of the Belgian Society Reproductive Medicine, Brussels; 2006.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Park CY, Uhm SJ, et al. Increase of ICSI efficiency with hyaluronic acid binding sperm for low aneuploidy frequency in pig. Theriogenology. 2005;64(5):1158–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Prinosilova P, Kruger T, et al. Selectivity of hyaluronic acid binding for spermatozoa with normal Tygerberg strict morphology. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(2):177–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Menkveld R, Franken DR, et al. Sperm selection capacity of the human zona pellucida. Mol Reprod Dev. 1991;30(4):346–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nasr-Esfahani MH, Razavi S, et al. Evaluation of sperm selection procedure based on hyaluronic acid binding ability on ICSI outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(5):197–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Reading

  1. Huszar G, Patrizio P, et al. Cytoplasmic extrusion and the switch from creatine kinase B to M isoform are completed by the commencement of epididymal transport in human and stallion spermatozoa. J Androl. 1998;19(1):11–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sperm Physiology Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive SciencesYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations