4.4 Article

TUNEL as a Test for Sperm DNA Damage in the Evaluation of Male Infertility

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 76, 期 6, 页码 1380-1386

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.04.036

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To standardize the TUNEL assay by establishing inter-and intraobserver variability, interassay variability, cutoff values, sensitivity and specificity of the assay, and studying the distribution of the DNA damage in a population of infertile men referred to a clinical andrology laboratory. METHODS Seminal ejaculates from 25 healthy male volunteers (controls) and 194 infertile men (with male factor infertility) referred to an andrology laboratory were examined for DNA damage by TUNEL assay using flow cytometric analysis. RESULTS Both the inter-and intraobserver variability and interassay variability was small (<10%). DNA damage in the controls was 11.9 +/- 6.8% vs. 29.5 +/- 18.7% in patients (P < .001). The cut-off value of 19.25% maximized the observed sensitivity (64.9%) and specificity (100%) of the assay. The distribution of DNA damage in the patients was as follows: 14.9% (29 of 194) with DNA damage between 0% and 10%; 22.7% (44 of 194) between 10% and 20%; 8.8% (17 of 194) between 20% and 30%; and 17.5% (34 of 194) between 30% and 40%. Finally, 27.3% (53 of 194) had TUNEL values >40%. CONCLUSIONS We report a detailed standardization of the TUNEL assay for clinical use, as well as reference ranges for DNA damage in normal healthy donors and infertile men. A cut-off of 19.25% with observed 100% specificity established in our program can differentiate infertile men with DNA damage from healthy men. This test can be offered to infertile patients who are idiopathic, have severe oxidative stress-related abnormal semen quality, and contribute to the infertility problem of the couple who are considering assisted reproductive techniques. UROLOGY 76: 1380-1386, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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