Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36515800›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis.

Farnaz Shapouri, Tara Mahendran, Mirudhubashini Govindarajan, Philip Xie, Olena Kocur, Gianpiero D Palermo, Hassan W Bakos, Aisling Ahlström, Gunilla Caisander, Bo Xu and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sperm Selection Procedures in Cases of High Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

13 authors.

Farnaz ShapouriMemphasys Ltd, 30 Richmond Road, Homebush West, NSW, 2140, Australia.
Tara MahendranAndrology Center, Coimbatore, India.
Mirudhubashini GovindarajanWomens Center and Hospitals, Coimbatore, India.
Philip XieThe Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Olena KocurThe Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Gianpiero D PalermoThe Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Hassan W BakosMonash IVF Group Limited, Level 2, 1 Fennell Street, Parramatta, NSW, 2151, Australia.
Aisling AhlströmGeneraLife IVF, 40229, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gunilla CaisanderGeneraLife IVF, 40229, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bo XuReproductive and Genetic Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Shun BaiReproductive and Genetic Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Sarah LambourneMemphasys Ltd, 30 Richmond Road, Homebush West, NSW, 2140, Australia.
R John AitkenMemphasys Ltd, 30 Richmond Road, Homebush West, NSW, 2140, Australia. john.aitken@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9152-156X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDeveloping optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving density gradient centrifugation (DGC).

methodsFive international ART Centres in Australia, India, Sweden, the USA, and China have collaborated in order to compare the quality of the sperm populations isolated by Felix™ and DGC in terms of processing time, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and DNA integrity as assessed by 3 methods: SCSA, Halo, and TUNEL.

resultsAcross all centers, 112 comparisons were performed. Although significant differences were noted between centers in terms of the quality of the semen samples subjected for analysis, overall, both methods were equally capable of isolating populations of spermatozoa exhibiting high levels of vitality and progressive motility. The absolute numbers of spermatozoa recovered were significantly (p < 0.001) lower with the Felix™ device although sperm quality was higher with 4/5 centers reporting a significant improvement in DNA integrity relative to DGC (p < 0.01-p < 0.001). In practical terms, the Felix™ device featured a standardized 6 min preparation time whereas clinical DGC protocols varied from center to center but generally took around 40 min to complete.

conclusionsThe Felix™ device is a positive technical development capable of isolating suspensions of highly motile spermatozoa exhibiting low levels of DNA damage in a fraction of the time taken by conventional procedures such as DGC.

Indexed as

SemenSperm MotilityCell SeparationCentrifugation, Density GradientDNAHumansMaleSpermatozoaDNADensity gradient centrifugationDNA damageElectrophoretic separationMotilitySperm selection

Identifiers

PMID36515800
PMCPMC9840737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.