– 1384 3 2 . 1* : . . IVF IVF , 54 CO2 9 Ham'sF10 . . 50 ive 100 (DMSO) 3 45 : . %95 37°C DMSO . . . : 50 . ROC . ch IVF IVF (Exprimental) of 18 . D 4 SI 76 -81 : 50 10/5 Ar . IVF : %15 . : . (1 ) 40 . -2 -3 (IVF) 20 -4 – (ICSI) . - 1 0913 353 5129 : Email: [email protected] – (IUI) * : - - -3 -2 4 – 84/4/25: 84/3/25: www.SID.ir 2 cut-off ROC 129 10 1996 10 (5 ) 30 . Carver . (2 ) 25 15 IVF . . IVF IVF (Seminal Analysis) D . . (2 ) . SI . . (3 ) IVF . . . 1383 56 . . Ar 2 . (2 ) 1382 Exprimental ch . ive of in vitro in vivo 7 SA . . IVF IVF (Liquefaction) . 37º C 45 30 Ham’sF10 10 . 400g 600 l CO2 37º C (4 ) IVF in vivo (Capacitation) . . %95 . 200 l 1994 Calvo . 200 l 1384 IVF 232 – www.SID.ir 2 . . . SPSS . (Correlation) .(Pearson Correlation) 50 . 1 l/ml DMSO . 50 HCG HMG . 200 . l ROC D . 50 (Acrosome Reaction=AR) (AR-control) 50 .(1 ( p<0.05) ) 5 50 DMSO ) ch .(1 50 ( - 37 3 200 ) 0/8 0.1M .(2 ) (p<0.05) 10 -1 10 37º C -2 -3 20 ) . . ) 22º C ( l 500g : 10 CO2 30 . 0/8 PH=1.8 DMSO 50 . . ( Ar 50 . . ive (AR-FF50) of (AR-DMSO) . SI 18 PH=5.3 -4 -5 10 (Receiving Operating Characteristics) ROC 1 cut-off 10 /5 45 . 2 %45 . cut-off . 1384 . (Double blind) 100 ART – www.SID.ir www.SID.ir ive ch Ar of SI D 2 :1 P Value (Pearson correlation) - 0/589 (P<0.05)+ 0/041 Range SD ± Mean 0-54 25/66 ± 13/49 AR-DMSO(%) 0-48 11/82 ± 12/18 AR-FF50(%) 1 2 2: FR>50% n=40 Range SD ± Mean P<0.05 6/14 ± 7/86 0-22 13/86 ± 12/88 0-48 - 23/96 ± 17/7 0-54 6/27 ± 11/84 9-51 DMSO = = DMSO . * DMSO SI + D FR=<50% n=14 Range SD ± Mean - 1 2 ** - * ** 80 . of 70 60 (6 ) 50 in vivo . (round-headed) ZP ch . (7 ) 40 ive IVF 6 9 .7 4 30 20 5 4 .4 9 4 4 .9 1 10 0 AR - c o n tr o l AR - D M S O AR -F F 5 0 . Ar :1 DMSO . ZP A23187 . (8 ) . . (SA) . (9 ) 1384 (sperm function test) – www.SID.ir 2 10 cut-off %50 cut-off . ( r=0/68) 30 20 (Capacitation) .(10) Krausz 10 .( r=0/31) 50 Pampiglione 1993 .( r=0/34) cut-off Cummins 10 cut-off . 50 : . 50 -1 50 .(P<0.05) -2 ROC ( 45 cut-off . (... 2000 Ar ch ive ) . A23187 . (4 ) ) Baldi (11) Baker Liu Parinaud cut-off 1991 2002 of 20 . 1995 2002 D %31 117 (1991) Cummins (1994) 54 IVF IVF .(.p<0.05) Calvo SI IVF cut-off 10/5 10/5 Oehinger . %45 . . : . 1996 Carver IVF . References 1384 – www.SID.ir 2 1. Quinn P, Jouannet P, Frydman R, Van Steirteghem, A. C, Wolf, J. P, Czyglik, F, Van der Abbeel, E. Infertility , a comprehensive text; ionophore- Induced acrosome reaction. 2005 Feb: 20 (2): 469-75. 9. Cummins JM, Pember SM, Jequier AM,Yovich 2nd ed; Seibel, Machelle, M., Eds, 1997. Yovich JL, Hartmann PE. A test of the human Appleton & Lange: Stamford, 793-807. sperm acrosome reaction following ionophore 2. Liu and Baker, Evaluation and assessment of challenge relationship to fertility and other semen for IVF/ICSI, Asian Androl, 2002 Dec 4; seminal parameters, J Androl. 1991 Mar- 281-285. Apr:12(2):98-103. 3. Coetzee, T.E., Check, J.H., Choe, J., An 10. Ceinwen, Artificial inducation of the acrosome reaction in vitro. Hum. Reprod., 1992 7, 978-981. Reproduction, 1994, Vol 9, 77-82. function assays and their predictive value for fertilization outcome in IVF therapy: a meta analysis. Human Repraduction update.2000, spermatozoa, Human 11. Baldi E, Luconi M, Bonaccorsi L, Forto G. Signal transduction pathways in human spermatozoa, J Reprod Immunol 2002 Jan: 53(1-2): 121-31. 12. Carver-Ward J.A., Hollanders J.M.G. High Vol. 6 No.2, 160-168. reaction prediction by flow cykometric predicts analysis of the CD46 antigen on the inner vitro fertilization, acrosomal membrane of spermatozoa. Hrtna. inducibility fertilization success at in fertilization of 5. Calvo L, Dennison–Lagos L, Banks, S.M. Acrosome human SI 4. Oehninger S.,Franken D., Saged E., Sperm in D evaluation of couples with failure of fertilization Hum. Reprod. 1994 9, 1880 – 1886. Repral, 1996 Tl, 1923-1928. 13. Krausz C, Bcxtaccorsi L. Two functional selected sperm parameters for classical invitro assays of sperm responsiveness to progesterone fertilization procedure of oocyte fertilization. and their predictive values in in 2005 Andrologia. Vol. 37 Issue 2-3: 72. fertilization. Hum. Reprod., 1996 11, 1661 – ch ive 6. Jedrzeiczak P, Powelezyk L. Predictive value of 7. Franken DR., Bastiaan HS and Oehninger SC. vitro 1667. 14. Pampiglione J.S, Tan S. and Campbell S. The in human sperm: validation of a micro assay use of the stimulated acrosome reaction test as a Ar Physiological induction of the acrosome reaction using minimal volumes of solubilized,homologous test of fertilizing ability in human spermatozoa. zona pellucida, J Assist Reprod Genet, Aug Fertil. Stril, (1993)59, 1280 – 1284. 15. Parinaud J, Vietez G, Moutaffian H, Richoilley 2000 17(7): 374-8. 8. Katsuki T, Hava T, Ueda K, Tanaka J, Ohema K. Prediction reproduction of outcomes treatment using G, Labal B. Variations in spontaneous and of assisted induced acrosome reaction: correlation with the calcium semen parameters and in-vitro fertilization results. Hum reprod 1995 Aug:10(8):2085-9. 1384 – www.SID.ir Ar ch ive of SI D 2 1384 – www.SID.ir