Comparing flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy for analyzing human sperm DNA fragmentation by TUNEL labeling

58Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Conflicting results are reported by recent studies comparing flow cytometry (FCM) and fluorescence microscopy (FM) for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation by TUNEL assay. Each of the two technologies has specific peculiarities and limitations, but whereas the limitations of FM observation are well known, the biases due to the inability of FCM to recognize morphologically analyzed cells are less explored. In particular, so far, FCM analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation have included in the analyses M540 bodies, round semen structures exhibiting FSC/SSC properties similar to sperm. Semen M540 bodies, altogether with the occurrence of two sperm populations with different nuclear staining, concur to an underestimation of values of sperm DNA fragmentation by FCM. However, even considering such bias, the observed discrepancies between the performance of FM and FCM are not fully explained. We discuss here the possible variables that may affect the results of each of the two technologies and the necessary efforts to be taken to address this issue. © 2008 International Society for Analytical Cytology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Muratori, M., Forti, G., & Baldi, E. (2008). Comparing flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy for analyzing human sperm DNA fragmentation by TUNEL labeling. Cytometry Part A, 73(9), 785–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.20615

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free