Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21725332›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology2011

The ability of sperm selection techniques to remove single- or double-strand DNA damage.

María Enciso, Miriam Iglesias, Isabel Galán, Jonás Sarasa, Antonio Gosálvez, Jaime Gosálvez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sperm selection for assisted reproductive technology: do we have a winner?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Double strand DNA breaks in sperm: the bad guy in the crowd.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

María EncisoUnidad de Genética, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid 28049, Spain. mariaencisolorences@gmail.com
Miriam Iglesias
Isabel Galán
Jonás Sarasa
Antonio Gosálvez
Jaime Gosálvez

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wide variety of techniques for the preparation of sperm are currently available, of which the most commonly employed are density-gradient centrifugation (DGC) and swim-up (SUP). To date, these methods appear to be effective in selecting functional sperm for assisted reproduction techniques (ART), but they may have negative effects on sperm DNA. In this study, the ability of these semen processing techniques to eliminate spermatozoa containing single- and double-strand DNA damage was assessed by the two-tailed comet assay and the sperm chromatin dispersion test in 157 semen samples from patients seeking assisted reproduction treatment. Our results indicated that SUP and DGC are equally efficient in eliminating spermatozoa containing double-strand DNA damage and sperm with highly damaged (degraded) DNA, as characterized by the presence of both single- and double-strand DNA breaks. However, DGC is more efficient than SUP in selecting spermatozoa that are free from single-strand DNA damage. Future studies should characterise the importance of the various types of DNA damage and examine the sperm processing protocols used in each laboratory to determine their ability to eliminate DNA damage and hence, prevent the potential transmission of genetic mutations via ART.

Indexed as

DNA DamageSpermatozoaHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID21725332
PMCPMC3739591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.