ArticleScientific reports2026
Bicarbonate buffer enhances functional sperm selection compared to Zwitterionic buffers in sperm preparation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sperm preparation media used in assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratories typically contain single or combined buffers to maintain pH and support spermatozoa homeostasis. Concerns exist that zwitterionic buffers, such as 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazine ethane sulfonic acid (HEPES) and 3-(N-morpholino) propane sulfonic acid (MOPS), may negatively affect intrinsic cellular functions. Hence, this prospective study evaluated the impact of various buffers on sperm selection by swim up from fifty-four sub-fertile men, which were then divided into normozoospermic samples (n = 27) and non-normozoospermic (n = 27) cohorts. Each ejaculate was split into six aliquots, and swim-up was performed with media buffered by bicarbonate, HEPES, MOPS, bicarbonate + HEPES, or bicarbonate + MOPS. Post-swim-up spermatozoa were assessed for motility, morphology, kinematics, acrosome reaction, mitochondrial integrity, and DNA damage. Bicarbonate-buffered medium yielded spermatozoa with significantly higher motility and mitochondrial activity in both normozoospermic and non-normozoospermic samples (p < 0.001). In contrast, media containing HEPES or MOPS were associated with reduced motility (p < 0.001), compromised sperm kinematic parameters (p < 0.05), and diminished mitochondrial potential (p < 0.05). The study findings highlight the importance of bicarbonate buffer over zwitterionic buffers in sperm preparation media for the selection of better spermatozoa during ART procedures.
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.