4.5 Article

Zinc levels in seminal plasma are associated with sperm quality in fertile and infertile men

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 82-88

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2008.11.007

关键词

Male infertility; Trace elements; Zinc; Seminal plasma; Sperm quality

资金

  1. University of Mazandaran (Babolsar, Iran)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zinc has antioxidative properties and plays an important role in scavenging reactive oxygen species. We hypothesized that in the absence of Zn, the possibility of increased oxidative damage exists that would contribute to poor sperm quality. Therefore, measurement of seminal Zn in the seminal plasma of males with a history of subfertility or idiopathic infertility is necessary and can be helpful in fertility assessment. The primary objective of the present study was to assess the relationship between Zn levels in seminal plasma with sperm quality in fertile and infertile men. Semen samples were provided by fertile (smoker [n = 17], nonsmoker [n = 19]) and infertile men (smoker [n = 15], nonsmoker [n = 2 1]). After semen analysis, concentrations of Zn, Mg, Ca, Na, and K in the seminal plasma of all groups were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Element concentrations in seminal plasma of all groups were in the order Na > K > Ca > Zn > Mg. Fertile subjects, smoker or not, demonstrated significantly higher seminal Zn levels than any infertile group (P < .001). A trend was observed for a lower Zn levels in seminal plasma of smokers compared with nonsmokers. Seminal Zn in fertile and infertile (smokers or nonsmokers) males correlated significantly with sperm count (P < .01) and normal morphology of sperm (P < .001). There was a significantly positive correlation between seminal Zn with Ca (P < .01) and K (P < .01) levels in all specimens. In conclusion, poor Zn nutrition may be an important risk factor for low quality of sperm and idiopathic male infertility. (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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