Using donor oocytes of proven fertility, the effect of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and motility on reproductive success was examined in 70 couples undergoing ICSI. Both SDF and sperm motility were assessed at the time of sperm injection and using the same sperm sample that was processed for ICSI. While there was no difference in the fertilization rate, cleavage rate, embryo quality, or sperm motility between pregnant and nonpregnant couples, the SDF of nonpregnant couples (SDF = 23.9%) was higher than that of pregnant couples (SDF = 17.0%; U Mann-Whitney 347; P = .002). Using a combination of the sensitivity and specificity measures from the production of ROC (receiver–operating characteristic) curves and the Youden index, we determined a threshold SDF value for our data set of 17% for predicting pregnancy (77.8% sensitivity and 71.1% specificity). Our results suggest that proven donor oocytes in combination with SDF assessment at the time of sperm injection represent a useful experimental model for reducing the confounding influences of sperm DNA repair by the oocyte and iatrogenic sperm damage.
GosálvezJLópez-FernándezCFernándezJLGouraudAHoltWV.Relationships between the dynamics of iatrogenic DNA damage and genomic design in mammalian spermatozoa from eleven species. Mol Reprod Dev. 2000;78(12):951–961.
2.
VargheseACBragaisFMMukhopadhyayDHuman sperm DNA integrity in normal and abnormal semen samples and its correlation with sperm quality. Andrologia. 2009;41(4):1–9.
3.
SmitMRomijnJCWildhagenMFWeberRFDohleGR. Sperm chromatin structure is associated with the quality of spermatogenesis in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1748–1752.
4.
EncisoMSarasaJAgarwalAFernándezJLGosálvezJ. A two-tailed Comet assay for assessing DNA damage in spermatozoa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009:18(5);609–616.
5.
KasaiH. Analysis of a form of oxidative DNA damage, 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine, as a marker of cellular oxidative stress during carcinogenesis. Mut Res. 1997:387(3);147–163.
6.
SantisoRTamayoMGosálvezJMeseguerMGarridoNFernándezJL. Simultaneous determination in situ of DNA fragmentation and 8-oxoguanine in human sperm. Fertil Steril. 2010:93(1);314–318.
7.
AzizNSaidTPaaschUAgarwalA. The relationship between human sperm apoptosis, morphology and the sperm deformity index. Hum Reprod. 2007:22(5);1413–1419.
8.
MorettiECapitaniSFiguraNThe presence of bacteria species in semen and sperm quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009:26(1);47–56.
9.
González-MarínCRoyRLópez-FernándezCBacteria in bovine semen can increase sperm DNA fragmentation rates: a kinetic experimental approach. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011:123(3-4);139–148.
10.
GosálvezJLópez-FernándezCFernándezJL.Sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test: technical aspects and clinical applications. In: ZiniAAgarwalA, eds. Sperm Chromatin: Biological and Clinical Applications in Male Infertility and Assisted Reproduction. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 2011:151–170.
11.
ZiniALibmanJ.Sperm DNA damage: clinical significance in the era of assisted reproduction. CMAJ. 2006;175(5):495–500.
12.
BungumMBungumLGiwercmanA. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA): a tool in diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Asian J Androl. 2011;13(1):69–75.
13.
MenezoJr YRussoGLTostiEMouatassimSEBenkhalifaM. Expression profile of genes coding for DNA repair in human oocytes using pangenomic microarrays, with a special focus on ROS linked decays. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(11):513–520.
14.
MeseguerMSantisoRGarridoNGarcía-HerreroSRemohíJFernándezJL. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on pregnancy outcome depends on oocyte quality. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):124–128.
15.
ZiniAFinelliaAPhangaDJarviaK. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56(6):1081–1084.
16.
GosálvezJCortés-GutierrezELópez-FernádezCFernándezJLCaballeroPNuñezR. Sperm DNA fragmentation dynamics in fertile donors. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:170–173.
17.
Ashwood-SmithMJEdwardsRG.DNA repair by oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;2(1):46–51.
18.
GosálvezJde la TorreJLópez-FernándezCDNA fragmentation dynamics in fresh versus frozen thawed 1 plus gradient-isolated human spermatozoa. Syst Biol Repord Med. 2010:56(1);27–36.
19.
MetzCE.Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006:3(6):413–422.
20.
FlussRFaraggiDReiserB. Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J. 2005:47(4):458–472.
21.
EvensonDPWixonR. Data analysis of two in vivo fertility studies using Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay-derived DNA fragmentation index vs. pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2008:90(4);1229–1231.
ZiniALibmanJ.Sperm DNA damage: clinical significance in the era of assisted reproduction. CMAJ. 2006:175;495–500.
24.
ZiniA.Clinical utility of sperm DNA integrity tests. In: ZiniAAgarwalA, eds. Sperm Chromatin: Biological and Clinical Applications in Male Infertility and Assisted Reproduction. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 2011:499–504.
25.
BungumMHumaidanPSpanoMJepsonKBungumLGiwercmanA.The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2004:19(6);1401–1408.
26.
SunJGJurisicovaACasperRF. Detection of deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation in human sperm: correlation with fertilization in vitro. Biol Reprod. 1997:56(3);602–607.
27.
GandiniLLombardoFPaoliDFull-term pregnancies achieved with ICSI despite high levels of sperm chromatin damage. Hum Reprod. 2004:19(6);1409–1417.
28.
VirroMRKjerstenLLarson-CookKLEvensonDP. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters are related to fertilization, blastocyst development, and ongoing pregnancy in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplamic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004:81(5);1289–1295.
29.
BungumM. Reply to: the predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay. Hum Reprod. 2005:20;839–840.
30.
NicopoullosJGilling-SmithCAlmeidaPRamsayJ. The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay. Hum Reprod. 2005:20(3);839–843.
31.
JørgensenNAugerJGiwercmanASemen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int J Androl. 1997:20(4);201–208.
32.
BrazilCSwanSHDrobnisEZStandardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004:25(4);635–644.
33.
AvendañoCOehningerS. DNA fragmentation in review morphologically normal spermatozoa: how much should we be concerned in the ICSI Era?J Androl. 2011:32(4);356–63.
34.
YoungKERobbinsWAXunLElashoffDRothmannPerreault SD.Evaluation of chromosome breakage and DNA integrity in sperm: an investigation of remote semen collection conditions. J Androl. 2003:24(6);853–861.
35.
DalzellLHMcVicarCMMcClureNLuttonDLewisSEM. Effects of short and long incubations on DNA fragmentation of testicular sperm. Fertil Steril. 2004:82(5);1443–1445.
36.
OlsenAKLindemanBWigerRDualeNBrunborgG. How do male germ cells handle DNA damage?Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005:207(suppl 2);521–531.
37.
MarchettiFEssersJKanaarRWyrobekAJ. Disruption of maternal DNA repair increases sperm-derived chromosomal aberrations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2007:104(45);17725–17729.
38.
KrivtsovAVFengZLemieuxMEH3K79 methylation profiles define murine and human MLL-AF4 leukemias. Cancer Cell. 2008:14(5);355–368.
