Impact of biological and artificial seminal fluids on sperm parameters and DNA status in asthenozoospermic ejaculates.

The chemical composition and physiological properties of seminal fluid (SF) affect sperm quality. The objective was to investigate the effects of in vitro exposure of artificial seminal fluid (ASF) and biological seminal fluid (SF) on sperm quality. Asthenozoospermic ejaculates (n = 20) were divided into two aliquots. The first aliquot was centrifuged for obtaining asthenozoospermic SF. The second aliquot was processed with density gradient centrifugation (DGC), and the pellet was diluted separately with following media: (a) ASF; (b) Ham's F10; (c) normozoospermic SF; and (d) asthenozoospermic SF. Sperm parameters and DNA status were assessed after DGC, as well as 2 and 24 hr after incubation. The data showed that sperm progressive motility, viability and DNA integrity were significantly higher in ASF than Ham's F10 medium immediately after DGC. At 2 and 24 hr, the progressive motility was significantly decreased in biological SF compared with ASF and Ham's F10. DNA fragmentation index (DFI) was significantly lower in normozoospermic SF than asthenozoospermic SF and Ham's F10 at time 2 hr. In conclusion, normal SF showed the protective role on sperm DNA structure. Moreover, ASF preserved sperm motility better than biological SF during 24 hr, despite being similar to normal SF regarding DNA integrity preservation in short time.

The relationship between cannabis use and IVF outcome-a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of cannabis use on male and female reproduction have been the focus of scientific research for decades. Although initial studies raised concerns, more recent studies were reassuring. Considering the recent legalization of recreational use of cannabis in Canada, we sought to analyze IVF outcomes among users and non-users in a single IVF center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from a single IVF center assessing IVF outcomes among male-female, non-donor IVF patients that are either cannabis users or non-users. We analyzed the ongoing pregnancy rate as well as oocyte yield, fertilization rate, peak serum estradiol, sperm, and embryo quality. We used the Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and Kruskal-Wallis tests where appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, the study included 722 patients of which 68 (9.4%) were cannabis users, most defined as light users. The results of the study show similar implantation rate (40.74% vs. 41.13%) and ongoing pregnancy rate (35.2% vs. 29.1%) between the users and non-users, respectively. No significant difference between users and non-users in any of the other analyzed outcomes could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: The results may provide some reassurance for the lack of any demonstrable detrimental effects of cannabis consumption on IVF outcomes. This study was limited by its retrospective nature, self-reporting of cannabis use, and a small user sample size. A larger prospective study is needed to validate its findings.