Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Ginekologia Polska
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2023

open access

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)
Research paper
Published online: 2019-12-31
View PDF Download PDF file Supp./Additional Files [1]
Get Citation

The higher risk for sperm DNA damage in infertile men

Kamil Gill1, Aleksandra Rosiak-Gill12, Joanna Jakubik1, Lukasz Patorski13, Mariusz Lukaszuk45, Malgorzata Piasecka1
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2019.0117
·
Pubmed: 31909460
·
Ginekol Pol 2019;90(12):684-691.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Histology and Developmental Biology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Żołnierska 48, 71-210 Szczecin, Poland
  2. VitroLive Fertility Clinic, Szczecin, Poland, Wojska Polskiego 103,, 70-483 Szczecin, Poland
  3. Department of Gynecology, Endocrinology and Gynecological Oncology, Pomeranian Medical University, Unii Lubelskiej 1, 71-252 Szczecin, Poland
  4. Healthcare Center Nowe Orlowo,, Aleja Zwycięstwa 245/8, 81-525 Gdynia, Poland
  5. Invicta Fertility Clinic, Rajska 10, 80-850 Gdansk, Poland

open access

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2019-12-31

Abstract

Objectives: Supplementary assays are needed for determination of relationships between sperm biomarkers and fertility potential. Therefore, our research was designed to determine the extent of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and establish a discriminating threshold of SDF for fertility potential. Material and methods: Semen characteristics were evaluated according to World Health Organization recommendations, and SDF was assessed by sperm chromatin dispersion test on ejaculated spermatozoa from infertile and healthy normozoospermic men. Results: A higher proportion of SDF was noted in infertile men (median 23.00%) than normozoospermic (median 14.00%). Significantly less subjects (17.03%) with low SDF level (≤ 15%) and more (35.17%) with high SDF level ( > 30%) were found for the infertile group vs the normooospermic (57.90% and 5.26%, respectively). Infertile group had significantly lower odds ratio (OR) for having a low SDF level (OR: 0.1493) and higher OR for having a high SDF level (OR: 9.7627). Receiver operating characteristic analysis [area under curve (AUC) = 0.785] revealed that 20% SDF is predictive value for discriminating between infertile and normozoospermic subjects. SDF was negatively correlated with the sperm number, morphology, progressive motility and vitality but positively with the teratozoospermia index. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates: (1) a significant difference in the extent of SDF and in the risk for having damaged sperm DNA between infertile and normozoospermic men, (2) > 20% SDF has negative predictive value for fertility potential, (3) coexistence of abnormal standard sperm parameters with sperm chromatin damages. Therefore, SDF should be considered as a highly valuable indicator of male fertility potential.

Abstract

Objectives: Supplementary assays are needed for determination of relationships between sperm biomarkers and fertility potential. Therefore, our research was designed to determine the extent of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and establish a discriminating threshold of SDF for fertility potential. Material and methods: Semen characteristics were evaluated according to World Health Organization recommendations, and SDF was assessed by sperm chromatin dispersion test on ejaculated spermatozoa from infertile and healthy normozoospermic men. Results: A higher proportion of SDF was noted in infertile men (median 23.00%) than normozoospermic (median 14.00%). Significantly less subjects (17.03%) with low SDF level (≤ 15%) and more (35.17%) with high SDF level ( > 30%) were found for the infertile group vs the normooospermic (57.90% and 5.26%, respectively). Infertile group had significantly lower odds ratio (OR) for having a low SDF level (OR: 0.1493) and higher OR for having a high SDF level (OR: 9.7627). Receiver operating characteristic analysis [area under curve (AUC) = 0.785] revealed that 20% SDF is predictive value for discriminating between infertile and normozoospermic subjects. SDF was negatively correlated with the sperm number, morphology, progressive motility and vitality but positively with the teratozoospermia index. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates: (1) a significant difference in the extent of SDF and in the risk for having damaged sperm DNA between infertile and normozoospermic men, (2) > 20% SDF has negative predictive value for fertility potential, (3) coexistence of abnormal standard sperm parameters with sperm chromatin damages. Therefore, SDF should be considered as a highly valuable indicator of male fertility potential.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file Supp./Additional Files [1]
Get Citation

Keywords

male infertility; semen parameters; sperm chromatin dispersion

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Language certificate
Download
904KB
About this article
Title

The higher risk for sperm DNA damage in infertile men

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

684-691

Published online

2019-12-31

Page views

1810

Article views/downloads

1239

DOI

10.5603/GP.2019.0117

Pubmed

31909460

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2019;90(12):684-691.

Keywords

male infertility
semen parameters
sperm chromatin dispersion

Authors

Kamil Gill
Aleksandra Rosiak-Gill
Joanna Jakubik
Lukasz Patorski
Mariusz Lukaszuk
Malgorzata Piasecka

References (37)
  1. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015; 21(4): 411–426.
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. Pan MM, Hockenberry MS, Kirby EW, et al. Male Infertility Diagnosis and Treatment in the Era of In Vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. Med Clin North Am. 2018; 102(2): 337–347.
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Kazerooni T, Asadi N, Jadid L, et al. Evaluation of sperm's chromatin quality with acridine orange test, chromomycin A3 and aniline blue staining in couples with unexplained recurrent abortion. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009; 26(11-12): 591–596.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Sharma R, Agarwal A, Rohra VK, et al. Effects of increased paternal age on sperm quality, reproductive outcome and associated epigenetic risks to offspring. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015; 13: 35.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Cho CL, Agarwal A. Role of sperm DNA fragmentation in male factor infertility: A systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2018; 16(1): 21–34.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Evenson DP. Evaluation of sperm chromatin structure and DNA strand breaks is an important part of clinical male fertility assessment. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(Suppl 4): S495–S500.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Leach M, Aitken RJ, Sacks G. Sperm DNA fragmentation abnormalities in men from couples with a history of recurrent miscarriage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55(4): 379–383.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Simon L, Emery BR, Carrell DT. Review: Diagnosis and impact of sperm DNA alterations in assisted reproduction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 44: 38–56.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Wiweko B, Utami P. Predictive value of sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation index in male infertility. Basic Clin Androl. 2017; 27: 1.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Abdelbaki SA, Sabry JH, Al-Adl AM, et al. The impact of coexisting sperm DNA fragmentation and seminal oxidative stress on the outcome of varicocelectomy in infertile patients: A prospective controlled study. Arab J Urol. 2017; 15(2): 131–139.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J Androl. 2002; 23(1): 25–43.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Al Omrani B, Al Eisa N, Javed M, et al. Associations of sperm DNA fragmentation with lifestyle factors and semen parameters of Saudi men and its impact on ICSI outcome. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018; 16(1): 49.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. World Health Organization. 2010. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 5th ed. World Health Organization Press, Geneva.
  14. Gill K, Jakubik J, Kups M, et al. The impact of sedentary work on sperm nuclear DNA integrity. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2019; 57(1): 15–22.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Gill K, Jakubik J, Rosiak-Gill A, et al. Utility and Predictive Value of Human Standard Semen Parameters and Sperm DNA Dispersion for Fertility Potential. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(11).
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Cho CL, Agarwal A, Majzoub A, et al. Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: concise practice recommendations. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(Suppl 4): S366–S373.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Majzoub A, Agarwal A, Esteves SC. Clinical utility of sperm DNA damage in male infertility. Panminerva Med. 2019; 61(2): 118–127.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Bungum M, Bungum L, Giwercman A. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA): a tool in diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Asian J Androl. 2011; 13(1): 69–75.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Marchlewska K, Filipiak E, Walczak-Jedrzejowska R, et al. Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index and Hyaluronan Binding Ability in Men from Infertile Couples and Men with Testicular Germ Cell Tumor. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 7893961.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Majzoub A, Arafa M, Mahdi M, et al. Oxidation-reduction potential and sperm DNA fragmentation, and their associations with sperm morphological anomalies amongst fertile and infertile men. Arab J Urol. 2018; 16(1): 87–95.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Tandara M, Bajić A, Tandara L, et al. Sperm DNA integrity testing: big halo is a good predictor of embryo quality and pregnancy after conventional IVF. Andrology. 2014; 2(5): 678–686.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. Zheng WW, Song Ge, Wang QL, et al. Sperm DNA damage has a negative effect on early embryonic development following fertilization. Asian J Androl. 2018; 20(1): 75–79.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Sivanarayana T, Ravi Krishna Ch, Jaya Prakash G, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation assay by sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD): correlation between DNA fragmentation and outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reprod Med Biol. 2014; 13(2): 87–94.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Khadem N, Poorhoseyni A, Jalali M, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation in couples with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortions. Andrologia. 2014; 46(2): 126–130.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Absalan F, Ghannadi A, Kazerooni M, et al. Value of sperm chromatin dispersion test in couples with unexplained recurrent abortion. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012; 29(1): 11–14.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Coughlan C, Clarke H, Cutting R, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation, recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage. Asian J Androl. 2015; 17(4): 681–685.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Fortunato A. Sperm DNA Fragmentation Assays Correlate with Sperm Abnormal Morphology and the Pregnancy Outcome. Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biology. 2013; 01(01).
    CrossRef
  28. Kim SW, Jee BC, Kim SKi, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation and sex chromosome aneuploidy after swim-up versus density gradient centrifugation. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2017; 44(4): 201–206.
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. Ribas-Maynou J, Fernández-Encinas A, García-Peiró A, et al. Human semen cryopreservation: a sperm DNA fragmentation study with alkaline and neutral Comet assay. Andrology. 2014; 2(1): 83–87.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Javed A, Talkad MS, Ramaiah MK. Evaluation of sperm DNA fragmentation using multiple methods: a comparison of their predictive power for male infertility. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2019; 46(1): 14–21.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Evgeni E, Charalabopoulos K, Asimakopoulos B. Human sperm DNA fragmentation and its correlation with conventional semen parameters. J Reprod Infertil. 2014; 15(1): 2–14.
    PubMed
  32. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(1): 174–179.
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Giwercman A, Lindstedt L, Larsson M, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay as an independent predictor of fertility in vivo: a case-control study. Int J Androl. 2010; 33(1): e221–e227.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. Wang Li, Zhang L, Song XH, et al. Decline of semen quality among Chinese sperm bank donors within 7 years (2008-2014). Asian J Androl. 2017; 19(5): 521–525.
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. Esteves SC. Interventions to Prevent Sperm DNA Damage Effects on Reproduction. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019; 1166: 119–148.
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. Pons I, Cercas R, Villas C, et al. One abstinence day decreases sperm DNA fragmentation in 90 % of selected patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30(9): 1211–1218.
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. Agarwal A, Gupta S, Du Plessis S, et al. Abstinence Time and Its Impact on Basic and Advanced Semen Parameters. Urology. 2016; 94: 102–110.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl