4.7 Article

Clinical significance of sperm DNA damage in assisted reproduction outcome

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 1594-1608

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq103

Keywords

Comet assay; formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase enzyme; modified base; sperm DNA fragmentation; threshold value

Funding

  1. Hamilton Thorne Biosciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Sperm DNA damage shows great promise as a biomarker of infertility. The study aim is to determine the usefulness of DNA fragmentation (DF), including modified bases (MB), to predict assisted reproduction treatment (ART) outcomes. METHODS: DF in 360 couples (230 IVF and 130 ICSI) was measured by the alkaline Comet assay in semen and in sperm following density gradient centrifugation (DGC) and compared with fertilization rate (FR), embryo cumulative scores (ECS1) for the total number of embryos/treatment, embryos transferred (ECS2), clinical pregnancy (CP) and spontaneous pregnancy loss. MB were also measured using formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase to convert them into strand breaks. RESULTS: In IVF, FR and ECS decreased as DF increased in both semen and DGC sperm, and couples who failed to achieve a CP had higher DF than successful couples (+12.2% semen, P = 0.004; +9.9% DGC sperm, P = 0.010). When MB were added to existing strand breaks, total DF was markedly higher (+17.1% semen, P = 0.009 and +13.8% DGC sperm, P = 0.045). DF was not associated with FR, ECS or CP in either semen or DGC sperm following ISCI. In contrast, by including MB, there was significantly more DNA damage (+16.8% semen, P = 0.008 and +15.5% DGC sperm, P = 0.024) in the group who did not achieve CP. CONCLUSIONS: DF can predict ART outcome for IVF. Converting MB into further DNA strand breaks increased the test sensitivity, giving negative correlations between DF and CP for ICSI as well as IVF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available