ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Effect of Two Different Sperm Selection Methods on Boar Sperm Parameters and In Vitro Fertilisation Outcomes.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in pig embryo production for cryopreservation, transfer and genome editing.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Endocrine-metabolic modulators in sperm biotechnology: cross-species mechanisms and translational priorities.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Boar Sperm Motility Assessment Using Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis: Current Practices, Limitations, and Methodological Challenges.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Porcine in vitro embryo production (IVP) protocols have conventionally used density gradient selection (DGS) by centrifugation to prepare sperm samples and achieve successful fertilisation. However, the possible toxicity of the solutions used and the potential damage caused by the centrifugation step may have a negative effect on the quality of the sample. Microfluidic chip-based sperm (MCS) sorting has been proposed as an alternative technique for the selection of high-quality sperm with the purpose of improving reproductive outcomes in IVF. This device does not require centrifugation or any toxic solution to prepare the sample for fertilisation. The sample is not subjected to unnecessary stress, and the process is less operator-dependent. In this study, we compared the sperm parameters of unselected extender-diluted boar semen samples with selected samples using DGS and MCS methods. The results show an expected reduction in sperm concentration after both methods. All the groups were significantly different from one another, with MCS being the group with the lowest concentration. Though the three groups had a similar overall motility, significant differences were found in progressive motility when comparing the unselected group (control, 19.5 ± 1.4%) with DGS and MCS. Progressive motility in DGS was also significantly higher than in MCS (65.2 ± 4.9% and 45.7% ± 5.3, respectively). However, MCS selection resulted in enriched sperm samples with a significantly lower proportion of morphologically abnormal sperm compared to DGS. After fertilisation, no statistical differences were found between the two methods for embryological parameters such as cleavage rates, blastulation rates, and embryo quality. The number of cells in blastocysts derived from MCS was significantly greater than those derived from DGS sperm. Thus, we demonstrate that MCS is at least as good as the standard DGS for most measures. As a more gentle and reproducible approach for sperm selection, however, it could improve consistency and improve IVP outcomes as mediated by a greater proportion of morphologically normal sperm and manifested by a higher cell count in blastocysts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.