Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aslam, I.
Right arrow Articles by Fishel, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aslam, I.
Right arrow Articles by Fishel, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 6, 1528-1533, June 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Evaluation of the fertilization potential of freshly isolated, in-vitro cultured and cryopreserved human spermatids by injection into hamster oocytes

Irfan Aslam and Simon Fishel1

CARE (Centres for Assisted Reproduction), The Park Hospital, Sherwood Lodge Drive, Burntstump Country Park, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8RX, UK

The clinical potential for fertilization was examined by using the human sperm–hamster oocyte assay system after microinjection of round (RS), elongating (ES) or elongated (EtedS) spermatids retrieved from obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic patients. Freshly isolated, in-vitro cultured and cryopreserved spermatids were utilized. For each category of microinjected spermatids, we demonstrated that the more mature the injected spermatid, the higher the incidence of fertilization (for freshly isolated spermatids, P < 0.006 and P < 0.008, for in-vitro cultured spermatids, P < 0.007 and P < 0.007 and for cryopreserved spermatids, P < 0.006 and P < 0.007 for obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic patients respectively). Short term in-vitro culture of the spermatogenic cells did not improve the incidence of fertilization. However, cryopreservation significantly decreased (P < 0.001) the incidence of fertilization when each corresponding spermatogenic cell stage was compared. The incidence of fertilization was not statistically different when corresponding stages of spermatogenic cells were compared from obstructive and non-obstructive patients.

Key words: cryopreservation/hamster oocytes/in-vitro culture/male infertility/spermatids

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Sousa, N. Cremades, J. Silva, C. Oliveira, L. Ferraz, J.T. da Silva, P. Viana, and A. Barros
Predictive value of testicular histology in secretory azoospermic subgroups and clinical outcome after microinjection of fresh and frozen-thawed sperm and spermatids
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 17(7): 1800 - 1810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Bahadur, R. Chatterjee, and D. Ralph
Testicular tissue cryopreservation in boys. Ethical and legal issues: Case report
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2000; 15(6): 1416 - 1420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.