Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Overview Of Cell Separation And Isolation

Overview Of Cell Separation And Isolation

Cell separation was first achieved in 1964 by S. H. Seal, who separated large tumor cells from the smaller blood cells using filtration. Two years later, Pohl and Hawk performed experiments on how cells respond differently to a nonuniform electric field based on the cell type. Such observations were the inception of cell separation methods, which allow isolating a single cell type from a heterogeneous sample.

Centrifugation

Centrifugation

Centrifugation is a separation technique based on differences in density or size. It is commonly used to separate solids from aqueous interferents. During centrifugation, the sample is placed in centrifugation tubes and spun at high angular velocity, which allows centrifugal force to act differentially on the different densities or masses of the components. After spinning, the supernatant liquid is decanted. Depending on the specific application, either the pellet or the supernatant is retained...

Subcellular Fractionation

Subcellular Fractionation

The homogenate obtained after cell lysis contains various membrane-bound organelles that can be further separated into pure fractions by subcellular fractionation. These isolates are used to study specific cellular components, analyze localized protein activity, and are even employed in diagnostics. Fractionation is typically achieved using centrifugation methods, the most common being density-gradient and differential centrifugation.
Differential Centrifugation
Differential centrifugation is...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Effects of UV Photo-Functionalization of Titanium Dental Implants on Osteoblast Responses In Vitro.

Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)·2026

Same author

Extracellular vesicle-integrated gelatin sponges enhance angiogenesis and cell migration in wound healing.

Journal of materials chemistry. B·2026

Same author

Correction: Effects of obesity on DNA methylation and DNA methyltransferases in the reproductive system.

Histochemistry and cell biology·2026

Same author

Epigenetic orchestration by DNMT3B and DNMT3L throughout oocyte maturation.

Histochemistry and cell biology·2026

Same author

Stepwise Optimization of a Matrigel-Based In Vitro Angiogenesis Assay for Reproducible and Quantifiable 2D-Tube Formation Using HUVECs.

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)·2026

Same author

Comparison of intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin and chemohyperthermia with mitomycin C in with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a critical assesment focusing on the quality of life and adverse events.

BMC urology·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 20, 2026

Sperm Collection of Differential Quality Using Density Gradient Centrifugation

Sperm Collection of Differential Quality Using Density Gradient Centrifugation

Published on: November 29, 2018

Does combining magnetic-activated cell sorting with density gradient or swim-up improve sperm selection?

Zeynep Cakar¹, Burcu Cetinkaya¹, Duru Aras¹

¹Department of Histology and Embryology, Laboratories for Stem Cells and Reproductive Biology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

|May 29, 2016

Summary

Combining magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) with density-gradient (DG) or swim-up (SU) sperm separation did not significantly improve sperm quality. MACS also reduced the number of motile sperm, suggesting it is not ideal for routine use.

Keywords:

DNA integrity Izumo-1 Magnetic cell sorting PLC-ζ Sperm selection

More Related Videos

Step-specific Sorting of Mouse Spermatids by Flow Cytometry

Step-specific Sorting of Mouse Spermatids by Flow Cytometry

Published on: December 31, 2015

Separation of Spermatogenic Cell Types Using STA-PUT Velocity Sedimentation

Separation of Spermatogenic Cell Types Using STA-PUT Velocity Sedimentation

Published on: October 9, 2013

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 20, 2026

Sperm Collection of Differential Quality Using Density Gradient Centrifugation

Sperm Collection of Differential Quality Using Density Gradient Centrifugation

Published on: November 29, 2018

Step-specific Sorting of Mouse Spermatids by Flow Cytometry

Step-specific Sorting of Mouse Spermatids by Flow Cytometry

Published on: December 31, 2015

Separation of Spermatogenic Cell Types Using STA-PUT Velocity Sedimentation

Separation of Spermatogenic Cell Types Using STA-PUT Velocity Sedimentation

Published on: October 9, 2013

Area of Science:

Reproductive biology
Andrology
Spermatozoa selection

Background:

Sperm selection is crucial for assisted reproductive technologies.
Traditional methods like density-gradient (DG) and swim-up (SU) have limitations.
Magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) is a newer technique for cell separation.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the efficacy of combining MACS with DG or SU for improved sperm selection.
To assess the impact of combined techniques on sperm morphology, motility, and DNA integrity.
To compare the effectiveness of MACS-assisted techniques against traditional methods alone.

Main Methods:

Sperm samples from normozoospermic and oligozoospermic individuals were used.
Techniques compared: SU, DG, SU+MACS, and DG+MACS.
Analysis included sperm morphology, motility, DNA integrity, and protein levels (Izumo-1, PLCZ).

Main Results:

While MACS combined with DG or SU showed some improvements, they were not statistically significant.
MACS application led to a significant reduction in total and rapidly progressive spermatozoa counts.
No significant differences in sperm morphology, DNA integrity, or protein levels were observed between groups.

Conclusions:

Combining MACS with DG or SU does not offer significant advantages for routine sperm selection.
MACS may be considered for specific cases with high sperm concentrations, but it reduces sperm count.
The cost-benefit ratio suggests MACS is not a practical choice for routine sperm selection in andrology labs.