4.4 Article

Integrity of mitochondrial membrane potential reflects human sperm quality

Journal

ANDROLOGIA
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 51-54

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.2008.00878.x

Keywords

Mitochondrial membrane potential; phosphatidylserine; reactive oxygen species; sperm quality

Categories

Funding

  1. Convenio de Desempeno-I
  2. Direccion de Investigacion, Universidad de La Frontera
  3. [DIUFRO-120545]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work was to evaluate intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, phosphatidylserine (PS) externalisation and mitochondrial membrane potential integrity in the spermatozoa of healthy donors and outpatients who consulted for infertility and to correlate the results with the classic sperm parameters. For the evaluation of intracellular ROS levels, PS externalisation and mitochondrial membrane potential integrity, the fluorescent compounds dihydroethidium, annexin V-FITC and JC-1, respectively, were used and analysed by using flow cytometry. Conventional seminal analysis, including motility, viability, morphology, sperm count and volume, was performed according to the WHO criteria. The mitochondrial membrane potential and ROS results showed significant differences between the spermatozoa of individuals with a normal semen analysis and those of the group presenting abnormality in at least one of the sperm parameters. Mitochondrial membrane potential showed a significant and direct correlation with all the sperm parameters analysed. ROS were inversely correlated with motility, viability and morphology. PS externalisation, however, did not show any differences between the two groups, nor was it correlated with the sperm parameters examined. The evaluation of mitochondrial membrane potential integrity is a test that reflects sperm quality, which makes it highly recommendable to be applied as a complement to routine sperm analyses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available