2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protamine 1 to protamine 2 ratio correlates with dynamic aspects of DNA fragmentation in human sperm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
70
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(48 reference statements)
2
70
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, a number of studies have reported that protamine deficiency could also deteriorate chromatin tight packaging and increase susceptibility to external stress resulting in increased risk of higher sperm DNA damage (Oliva, 2006;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011;Ni et al, 2014). To date, the most common methods to analyze protamine deficiency are CMA3 staining and protamine ratio, which were proved to be closely associated with sperm DNA damage (Aoki et al, 2005b;Nili et al, 2009;Tavalaee et al, 2009;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011;Manochantr et al, 2012;Ni et al, 2014). Therefore, we also systematically analyzed the association between protamine deficiency and sperm DNA damage in this meta-analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…On the other hand, a number of studies have reported that protamine deficiency could also deteriorate chromatin tight packaging and increase susceptibility to external stress resulting in increased risk of higher sperm DNA damage (Oliva, 2006;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011;Ni et al, 2014). To date, the most common methods to analyze protamine deficiency are CMA3 staining and protamine ratio, which were proved to be closely associated with sperm DNA damage (Aoki et al, 2005b;Nili et al, 2009;Tavalaee et al, 2009;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011;Manochantr et al, 2012;Ni et al, 2014). Therefore, we also systematically analyzed the association between protamine deficiency and sperm DNA damage in this meta-analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of nine studies with 633 patients and 463 controls in the first part, which fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria, were considered for the analysis. Five of the studies were prospective (de Mateo et al, 2009;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011;Rogenhofer et al, 2013;Ni et al, 2014;Savadi-Shiraz et al, 2015) and four were retrospective (Mengual et al, 2003;Aoki et al, 2005aAoki et al, , 2006aSteger et al, 2008). Four studies used real-time RT-qPCR (mRNA) (Steger et al, 2008;Rogenhofer et al, 2013;Ni et al, 2014;Savadi-Shiraz et al, 2015) and five studies employed PAGE (protein) (Mengual et al, 2003;Aoki et al, 2005aAoki et al, , 2006ade Mateo et al, 2009;Garcia-Peiro et al, 2011) to calculate the protamine ratio.…”
Section: Study Design Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…26,27 Additionally, the sensitivity (true positive) and specificity (1: false positive) of using SDF as a predictor of pregnancy varies among different laboratories and is likely to be dependent on the type of ART employed and the varying skill of individual clinicians (see, for example, Tables 3 and 4 in Zini and Sigman 28 and Zini 29 ). This inconsistency is probably due to the fact that the genesis of SDF in the male is not a consequence of a single factor but of a series of inter-related events including defective spermatogenesis during chromatin remodelling, the interaction of spermatozoa with oxidative stress, exposure to bacterial infections, the presence of chromosomal abnormalities, 30 constitutive genetic conditions, 31,32 genomic modifications, such as telomere-shortening 33 or environmental stress. 34 The predictive value of SDF is also influenced by the quality and competence of the oocyte, and the capacity of the female gamete to repair sperm DNA damage following syngamy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%