Cyclic FEE Peptide Improves Human Sperm Movement Parameters without Modification of Their Energy Metabolism

Abstract

Cyclic fertilin peptide (cFEE: phenylalanine, glutamic acid; glutamic acid) improves gamete interaction in humans. We investigate whether it could be via improvement of sperm movement parameters and their mitochondrial ATP production. Sperm movement parameters were studied using computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) in sperm samples from 38 patients with normal sperm in medium supplemented with cyclic fertilin against a control group. Sperm mitochondrial functions were studied using donor’s sperm, incubated or not with cFEE. It was evaluated by the measurement of their ATP production using bioluminescence, their respiration by high resolution oxygraphy, and of mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) using potentiometric dyes and flow cytometry. cFEE significantly improved sperm movement parameters and percentage of hyperactivated sperm. Impact of inhibitors showed OXPHOS as the predominant energy source for sperm movement. However, cFEE had no significant impact on any of the analyzed mitochondrial bioenergetic parameters, suggesting that it could act via a more efficient use of its energy resources.

Cyclic fertilin-derived peptide stimulates in vitro human embryo development

“…Therefore, the absence of mtDNA CN modification reported in our study is not sugges-tive of a mitochondrial response to oxidative stress after cFEE treatment. Furthermore, the fact that the mitochondrial metabolism is not affected by cFEE in the embryo is in agreement with our recent finding in human sperm metabolism (57).…”

Mitochondrial metabolism determines the functional status of human sperm and correlates with semen parameters

“…We are aware that this low limit is not only a drawback of the method, but also a limitation of this study because we could not measure sperm from some oligozoospermic males. Other authors have used HRR to analyze sperm metabolism, looking for either changes in mitochondrial function under different experimental conditions ( Cedikova et al, 2014 ; Hereng et al, 2014 ; Le Foll et al, 2021 ) or differences between sperm from normozoospermic and asthenozoospermic men ( Cedikova et al, 2014 ; Cedíková et al, 2014 ) suggesting that this tool has potential applications.…”