The cryopreservation of spermatozoa is an important reproductive technology for the preservation of fertility in man and animals. Since the serendipitous discovery of glycerol as an effective cryoprotectant in 1947, sperm cryopreservation has undergone many changes in terms of the freezing methods employed, the rates at which samples are frozen and thawed, and the media used to preserve sperm functionality and DNA integrity. An extensive literature survey has been conducted addressing the cryoprotectants employed for both animal and human semen and the freezing protocols utilised. The results indicate that glycerol remains the dominant cryoprotective agent, usually incorporated into a balanced salt solution containing energy substrates, buffers, osmolytes and protein in the form of human serum albumin (human) or skimmed milk (animal). Realisation that some of the damage observed in cryostored cells involves the generation of reactive oxygen species during the thawing process, has prompted many studies to assess the relative merits of incorporating antioxidants into the cryopreservation media. However, in the absence of systematic comparisons, there is currently no consensus as to which antioxidant combination might be the most effective. Utilising our fundamental understanding of cryodamage to optimise cryopreservation protocols for each species will be important in the future.

Sperm cryopreservation is a valuable tool for the long-term preservation of male fertility. Thus, determining the optimal technique for isolating spermatozoa post-thaw, is vital to ensure recovery of the highest quality spermatozoa with minimal iatrogenic damage. This not only enhances the chances of successful conception, but also reduces the risk of genetic damage in the embryo. To address this issue, human semen samples were cryopreserved using a slow freezing protocol and Quinn's Advantage™ Sperm Freeze medium. The samples were subsequently thawed and subjected to three types of sperm isolation procedure: direct swim-up, density gradient centrifugation (DGC), and electrophoretic separation using the Felix™ device. Cryopreservation led to the anticipated loss of sperm motility and vitality in association with increases in lipid peroxidation and DNA damage. Following sperm selection, all three isolation techniques resulted in an increase in sperm motility which was particularly evident with the swim-up and Felix™ procedures. The latter also significantly improved sperm vitality. There were no differences between sperm separation techniques with respect to morphology, and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation remained essentially unchanged, when cell vitality was taken into account. By contrast, major differences were observed in DNA integrity and lipid aldehyde formation, where Felix™ isolated cells exhibiting significantly less DNA damage than the other isolation procedures as well as lower levels of 4-hydroxynonenal formation. Electrophoretic sperm isolation therefore offers significant advantages over alternative separation strategies, in terms of the quality of the gametes isolated and the time taken to achieve the isolation.