Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies

Open access
Sakkas, D.·2000·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Human semen is heterogeneous in quality, not only between males but also within a single ejaculate. Differences in quality are evident, both when examining the classical parameters of sperm number, motility and morphology and in the integrity of the sperm nucleus. The aim of this study was to determine the efficiency of the PureSperm((R)), Percoll((R)) and swim-up preparation techniques to eliminate spermatozoa with nuclear anomalies. Semen samples were collected, washed and one part of the semen spread on a slide, the remainder was prepared using the swim-up, PureSperm((R)) or Percoll((R)) techniques. Spermatozoa from different fractions were fixed on slides and assessed. Sperm samples (n) from different men were stained using the chromomycin A(3) (CMA(3)) fluorochrome, which indirectly demonstrates a decreased presence of protamine (n = 31 for swim-up; n = 45 for PureSperm((R)); n = 39 for Percoll((R))). Spermatozoa prepared using PureSperm((R)) (n = 35) and Percoll((R)) (n = 37) were also examined for the presence of endogenous DNA nicks. Good quality spermatozoa should not possess DNA nicks and not stain (i.e. fluoresce) with CMA(3). When prepared using the swim-up technique the spermatozoa recovered showed no significant improvement with the CMA(3) staining. When spermatozoa were prepared using the PureSperm((R)) and Percoll((R)) techniques, a significant (P < 0.001) decrease in both CMA(3) positivity and DNA strand breakage was observed. These results indicate that both the PureSperm((R)) and Percoll((R)) techniques can enrich the sperm population by separating out those with nicked DNA and with poorly condensed chromatin.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/15.5.1112

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Sakkas, D.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2000-05-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
1112-1116
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2137923407
Cited by
248
References
0
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/15.5.1112
The paper
Sakkas, D. (2000). The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.5.1112

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.