Sperm DNA fragmentation in donors and normozoospermic patients attending for a first spermiogram: Static and dynamic assessment

Abstract

Static assessment of sperm DNA Fragmentation (SDF at the time of ejaculation or sperm thawing when cryopreserved) and the dynamic assessment of SDF (SDF assessed after T2 hr, T6 hr and T24 hr of sperm thawing) were used to establish cut-off values associated with sperm donors when compared with closely related normozoospermic patients. Cryopreserved samples from donors revealed SDF levels two times lower in comparison with the patients. Donor sperm DNA exhibited a 2.5 times higher longevity when compared with the patients. Static values of SDF after thawing of approximately 11% identify the donors with a 71% of sensitivity and 84% specificity. With respect to the dynamic assessment, SDF increases of 2.3 per hr during the first 2 hr of incubation identify the donors with 70% of sensitivity and 66% of specificity. Creating the Rate of Combined Damage (RCD) defined as the product of SDF-T by the increase in the damage registered during the first 2 hr of incubation (r-SDF-T ), an index of RCD = 22.2 units has an identification capacity of donors with a 78% sensitivity and 77% specificity. Such cut-off values could be used to characterise donors with high chromatin resistance to damage when meeting the above-established criteria.

Dynamic assessment of human sperm DNA damage II: the effect of sperm concentration adjustment during processing

“…Based on a convincing amount of evidence emphasizing on a strong explanatory value of SDF in distinguishing potentially fertile and infertile subjects [1,6,7,9,17,18], several studies have been carried out to establish a threshold value Fig. 1 Interpretation of the SCD procedure (a).…”

“…The concentration-dependent dynamic behavior of sperm DNA quality provides a new focus on the complex scenario of sperm DNA quality assessment. This aspect relays on the fact that DNA integrity should be considered a marker for semen quality evaluation in ARTs [7,17,23], but it could be also considered at the time of organizing the laboratory logistics for ART purposes. Nevertheless, a static consideration of SDF, i.e., a discrete value obtained at a generally unreported time following ejaculation, is currently more accepted.…”

“…Successful artificial insemination (AI) relies on the delivery of a sufficient and effective number of spermatozoa into the female reproductive tract. However, low number of spermatozoa used for insemination must be compensated with sperm characteristics such as acceptable motility, normal morphology, stable membranes, and the ability to undergo acrosome reaction and above all, spermatozoa must have good DNA quality in order to successfully participate in syngamy producing an orthodox and stable 2n zygote [6,7]. In fact, in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), sperm DNA integrity has become increasingly more important to achieve pregnancy rather than the number of spermatozoa present in the ejaculate.…”

“…As such, the loss of sperm fertilizing ability may be directly associated with such dynamic growth of DNA damage in relation to the time of in vitro semen exposure [10]. To emphasize on such DNA longevity, we have previously established the rate of sperm DNA fragmentation (r-SDF) defined as the increment of SDF in a specific time unit (generally hours), when spermatozoa are exposed to the in vitro environment under specific experimental conditions [7,11].…”

Investigating the level of DNA double‐strand break in human spermatozoa and its relation to semen characteristics and IVF outcome using phospho‐histone H2AX antibody as a biomarker

“…Our results were in accordance with the data of Tvrda et al , who reported no significant correlation among rate of sperm DNA DSB to conventional sperm parameters (Tvrdá et al , ). However, existing data in the literature about basic semen parameters and sperm DNA integrity are inconsistent (Bungum et al , ; Winkle et al , ; Khadem et al , ; Zhong et al , ).…”