4.6 Article

Differences in blood and semen oxidative status in fertile and infertile men, and their relationship with sperm quality

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 300-306

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.011

Keywords

antioxidant status; blood and seminal plasma; male infertility; oxidative stress; sperm quality; lipid peroxidation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oxidative stress plays a fundamental role in the aetiology of male infertility by negatively affecting sperm quality and function. Assessment of blood and seminal plasma oxidative profiles might be a valuable tool to improve evaluation of sperm reproductive capacity and functional competence. This study examined the lipid-soluble antioxidant profile and levels of lipid peroxidation both in blood and seminal plasma samples of infertile and fertile males, in relation to semen parameters. Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and vitamin E concentrations were significantly (P < 0.05) lower in seminal plasma of infertile men compared with fertile subjects; concurrently, a significant accumulation of malondialdehyde was found in infertile patients (P = 0.032 compared with controls), which was negatively correlated with sperm motility and morphology. In blood samples, infertile men presented lower concentrations of TAC, carotenoids and vitamin E than fertile subjects; TAC and carotenoids were positively correlated with sperm motility, morphology and concentration. Finally, blood TAC and vitamin E concentrations were positively correlated with the corresponding seminal values, confirming the close relationship between blood and semen antioxidants. All these results indicated the possibility of using not only seminal antioxidants but also blood antioxidants as biochemical markers to support sperm quality evaluation. RBM Online (c) 2012, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available