Comparison of Cryopreserved Human Sperm between Ultra Rapid Freezing and Slow Programmable Freezing: Effect on Motility, Morphology and DNA Integrity.

BACKGROUND Cryopreservation of sperm is common methods to preserve male fertility. Sperm freezing, suggest slow programmable freezing caused lower change of sperm morphology than sperm freezing in vapor of liquid nitrogen. Ultra rapid freezing is easy to be worked on, less time, low cost and does not need high experience. OBJECTIVE To compare the effect on sperm motility, morphology and DNA integrity of post-thawed sperm after ultra rapid freezing and slow programmable freezing methods. MATERIAL AND METHOD Experimental study at laboratory of infertility unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital. Thirty-seven semen samples with normal semen analysis according to World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 [normal sperm volume ( 2 ml) and normal sperm concentration (≥ 20 x10(6)/ml) and sperm motility (≥ 50%)]. Semen samples were washed. Then each semen sample was divided into six cryovials. Two cryovials, 0.5 ml each, were cryopreserved by slow programmable freezing. Four 0.25 ml containing cryovials, were cryopreserved by ultra rapidfreezing method. After cryopreservationfor 1 month, thawedprocess was carried out at room temperature. Main outcomes are sperm motility was determined by Computer-Assisted Semen Analysis (CASA), sperm morphology was determined by eosin-methylene blue staining and sperm DNA integrity was assessed by TUNEL assay. RESULTS Sperm motility was reduced significantly by both methods, from 70.4 (9.0)% to 29.1 (12.3)% in slowprogrammable freezing and to 19.7 (9.8)% in ultra rapid freezing (p < 0.05). Sperm motility decreased significantly more by ultra rapid freezing (p < 0.001). The percentage of normal sperm morphology and DNA integrity were also reduced significantly by both methods. However, no significant difference between the two methods was found (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION Cryopreservation of human sperm for 1 month significantly decreased sperm motility, morphology and DNA integrity in both methods. However sperm motility was decreased more by ultra rapid freezing.

[1]  T. Vutyavanich,et al.  Rapid freezing versus slow programmable freezing of human spermatozoa. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  Denny Sakkas,et al.  Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  A. Langellotti,et al.  Cryopreservation of the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) spermatozoa. , 2009, Cryobiology.

[4]  S. Weerakiet,et al.  Comparison of cryopreserved human sperm in vapor and liquid phases of liquid nitrogen: effect on motility parameters, morphology, and sperm function. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  S. Petyim,et al.  Cryodamage on sperm chromatin according to different freezing methods, assessed by AO test. , 2006, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[6]  L. Weissbach,et al.  [Cryopreserved human sperm deposits: usability after decades of storage]. , 2005, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.

[7]  M. Martini,et al.  Evaluation of dog semen quality after slow (biological freezer) or rapid (nitrogen vapours) freezing. , 2005, Reproduction, nutrition, development.

[8]  E. Seli,et al.  Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  A. Lenzi,et al.  Full-term pregnancies achieved with ICSI despite high levels of sperm chromatin damage. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[10]  I. Katkov,et al.  DNA integrity and motility of human spermatozoa after standard slow freezing versus cryoprotectant-free vitrification. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[11]  T. Georg,et al.  Andrology: Evaluation of Cryoinjury of Spermatozoa After Slow (Programmed Biological Freezer) or Rapid (Liquid Nitrogen Vapour) Freeze–Thawing Techniques , 2001, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[12]  J. Anger,et al.  Cryopreservation of sperm: indications, methods and results. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[13]  R. Dunn,et al.  Ultra-rapid freezing of very low numbers of sperm using cryoloops. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[14]  N. Mcclure,et al.  The effects of cryopreservation on sperm morphology, motility and mitochondrial function. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[15]  L. M. Thurston,et al.  Identification of Amplified Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Markers Linked to Genes Controlling Boar Sperm Viability Following Cryopreservation1 , 2002, Biology of reproduction.

[16]  N. Mcclure,et al.  Cryopreservation of human semen and prepared sperm: effects on motility parameters and DNA integrity. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  N. Mcclure,et al.  Assessment of DNA integrity and morphology of ejaculated spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men before and after cryopreservation. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[18]  M. Stieber,et al.  Comparison between computerized slow-stage and static liquid nitrogen vapour freezing methods with respect to the deleterious effect on chromatin and morphology of spermatozoa from fertile and subfertile men. , 2001, International journal of andrology.

[19]  G. Rosenthal,et al.  Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  E. Coonen,et al.  Comparison of in-vitro development of embryos originating from either conventional in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[21]  H. Tournaye.  Surgical sperm recovery for intracytoplasmic sperm injection: which method is to be preferred? , 1999, Human reproduction.

[22]  T. Georg,et al.  Effect of freeze-thawing procedure on chromatin stability, morphological alteration and membrane integrity of human spermatozoa in fertile and subfertile men. , 1999, International journal of andrology.

[23]  G. J. Morris,et al.  A novel approach to sperm cryopreservation. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[24]  R. Casper,et al.  Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation is increased in poor-quality semen samples and correlates with failed fertilization in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. , 1998, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  R. Aitken,et al.  Relative impact of oxidative stress on the functional competence and genomic integrity of human spermatozoa. , 1998, Biology of reproduction.

[26]  A. Campana,et al.  Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? , 1998, Human reproduction.

[27]  W. Holt.  Alternative strategies for the long-term preservation of spermatozoa. , 1997, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[28]  P. F. Watson,et al.  Recent developments and concepts in the cryopreservation of spermatozoa and the assessment of their post-thawing function. , 1995, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[29]  J. H. Olson,et al.  Semen cryobanking for men with cancer--criteria change. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[30]  B. Ames,et al.  Immunocompetence and oxidant defense during ascorbate depletion of healthy men. , 1991, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[31]  R. Long,et al.  Detrimental effects of cryopreservation on the structural and functional integrity of the sperm membrane. , 1991, Archives of andrology.

[32]  J. Critser,et al.  Cryopreservation of human spermatozoa. III. The effect of cryoprotectants on motility. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  C. Lombard,et al.  Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. , 1986, Fertility and sterility.

[34]  D. Richardson,et al.  Ultrastructural injury to human spermatozoa after freezing and thawing. , 1978, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[35]  J. K. Sherman.  Freezing and freeze-drying of human spermatozoa. , 1954, Fertility and sterility.