4.5 Article

Early apoptotic changes in human spermatozoa and their relationships with conventional semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation

期刊

ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 227-235

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00295.x

关键词

Annexin V; apoptosis; DNA fragmentation; infertility; mitochondria; sperm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To investigate whether early apoptotic changes in spermatozoa can be significant markers for sperm quality. Methods: Two early apoptotic changes in the semen of 56 men were assessed using Annexin V (AN)/propidium iodide (PI) staining for phosphatidylserine externalization and JC-1 staining for mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP). The results were compared with conventional semen parameters and DNA fragmentation identified using the TUNEL assay. Results: The different labeling patterns in the bivariate Annexin V/PI analysis identified four distinctive spermatozoa populations. The percentage of AN(-)/PI- spermatozoa positively correlated with conventional semen parameters and MMP, but negatively correlated with TUNEL (+) spermatozoa. As for the AN(-)/PI+ fraction, we found an opposite result in comparison to AN(-)/PI- spermatozoa. The level of early apoptotic AN(+)/PI- spermatozoa negatively correlated with MMP and sperm motility. The level of late apoptotic AN(+)/PI+ spermatozoa negatively correlated with conventional semen parameters and MMP, and positively correlated with TUNEL (+) spermatozoa. MMP positively correlated with conventional semen parameters, but negatively correlated with TUNEL (+) spermatozoa. Conclusion: Although early apoptotic AN(+)/PI- spermatozoa only negatively correlates with sperm motility, the differences in proportion of each subpopulation of spermatozoa (especially, the percentage of AN(-)/PI- spermatozoa), and decreased MMP might be significant markers for diagnosing male infertility. They possibly bring additional information to predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization.

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