Effect of Two Different Sperm Selection Methods on Boar Sperm Parameters and In Vitro Fertilisation Outcomes

Simple Summary: This study compares two methods of preparing boar sperm for in vitro fertilization: the traditional density gradient selection (DGS) using centrifugation and the newer microfluidic chip-based sperm (MCS) sorting. MCS resulted in lower sperm concentration and fewer morphologically abnormal sperm compared to DGS. Additionally, although DGS showed higher progressive motility, both methods had similar fertilization outcomes in terms of cleavage rates, blastulation rates, and embryo quality. The results show that MCS performs at least as well as DGS and may offer advantages due to its gentler approach and potential for more consistent results in IVF procedures.

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.