4.6 Article

Septins as Diagnostic Markers for a Subset of Human Asthenozoospermia

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 180, 期 6, 页码 2706-2709

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.005

关键词

infertility; male; testis; asthenozoospermia; SEPT4 protein; human; SEPT7 protein; human

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Septins are the major constituents of the annulus, a submembranous ring that separates the middle and principal pieces of spermatozoa. We previously reported its essential role in spermiogenesis and reproduction in mice. In the current study we investigated septin abnormality in infertile men. Materials and Methods: Semen samples from 108 infertile patients and 21 healthy volunteers were analyzed for sperm concentration and motility. Spermatozoa were immunostained for the 2 representative septin subunits SEPT4 and SEPT7. Peripheral blood DNA from 8 patients with asthenozoospermia who had defective SEPT4 and/or SEPT7 labeling in the annuli was analyzed by direct sequencing. Clinical information and a followup review of pregnancy were obtained retrospectively from medical records. Results: Specific antibodies for SEPT4 and SEPT7 consistently labeled the annuli in spermatozoa from the 21 healthy volunteers, while 14 of 108 samples (13%) from infertile patients showed defective labeling. In 33 patients with asthenozoospermia 10 samples (30%) demonstrated defective labeling for SEPT4 and/or SEPT7. We could not detect exon mutations in the SEPT4 gene by sequencing peripheral blood DNA from 8 patients with asthenozoospermia who had defective SEPT4 and/or SEPT7 labeling. During followup 8 of 14 patients (57%) with SEPT4 and/or SEPT7 labeling defects achieved successful pregnancies. Conclusions: Annulus defects were found exclusively in infertile patients. Although their prognoses do not differ from those without annulus defects, annulus labeling by septin antibodies may serve as an index for classifying a subset of spermatogenesis defects and monitoring sperm quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据