4.6 Article

Relationships between human sperm protamines, DNA damage and assisted reproduction outcomes

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 724-734

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.010

关键词

alkaline Comet assay; clinical pregnancy; embryo quality; fertilization rate; P1/P2 ratio; sperm DNA fragmentation

资金

  1. Hamilton Thorne Biosciences, USA
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia [BMC2006-03479, BFU2009-07118]
  3. FEDER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The exchange of histones with protamines in sperm DNA results in sperm chromatin compaction and protection. Variations in sperm protamine expression are associated with male infertility. The aim of this study was to investigate relationships between DNA fragmentation, sperm protamines and assisted reproduction treatment. Semen and spermatozoa prepared by density-gradient centrifugation (DGC) from 73 men undergoing IVF and 24 men undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were included in the study. Nuclear DNA fragmentation was assessed using the alkaline Comet assay and protamines were separated by acid-urea polyacrylamide gels. Sperm DNA fragmentation and protamine content (P1-DNA, P2-DNA, P1 + P2-DNA) decreased in spermatozoa after DGC. Abnormally high and low P1/P2 ratios were associated with increased sperm DNA fragmentation. Couples with idiopathic infertility had abnormally high P1/P2 ratios. Fertilization rates and embryo quality decreased as sperm DNA fragmentation or protamines increased. Sperm DNA fragmentation was lower in couples achieving pregnancies after IVF, but not after ICSI. There was no correlation between protamine content (P1-DNA, P2-DNA, P1 + P2-DNA) or P1/P2 ratios and IVF or ICSI pregnancies. Increased sperm DNA fragmentation was associated with abnormal protamination and resulted in lower fertilization rates, poorer embryo quality and reduced pregnancy rates. (C) 2011, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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