Some relevant points on sperm DNA fragmentation tests
Commentary

Some relevant points on sperm DNA fragmentation tests

Monica Muratori, Elisabetta Baldi

Sexual Medicine and Andrology Unit, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

Correspondence to: Monica Muratori. Sexual Medicine and Andrology Unit, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence Viale Pieraccini, 6 I-50139 Firenze, Italy. Email: Monica.muratori@unifi.it.

Comments on: Agarwal A, Majzoub A, Esteves SC, et al. Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios. Transl Androl Urol 2016;5:935-50.


Submitted Jan 21, 2017. Accepted for publication Feb 01, 2017.

doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.47


The article by Agarwal et al. (1) published in Translational Andrology and Urology at the end of the past year, faces the important topic of the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) test.

Currently, a great debate is present in the literature regarding the possible routine use of SDF within male and couple infertility work up. The article by Agarwal et al. (1), besides reviewing the different methods that can be used to detect SDF, has the merit to provide clinical indications for some medical scenarios where the SDF tests may have relevance (summarized in the Table 2 of Agarwal’s paper).

The most important problem emerging from the current debate in the literature regarding the clinical utility of SDF tests is the presence of several possible assays which are very different both in the procedure and in the type of damage they are detecting. Regarding these points, the article by Agarwal et al. (1) reports the main advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques used to detect SDF in Table 1 of Agarwal’s paper. The issue of the type of damage revealed by the different techniques is very important and deserves a deeper investigation. Keeping in mind that the most important damage is the one impacting the reproductive outcomes, it is important to define better the relationship between the used test and the considered outcomes. This point has been faced in recent meta-analyses (2-5) where studies were grouped according to the methods. Interestingly, when the miscarriage rate is considered as endpoint both after assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) and natural pregnancies, the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method appears to be the most predictive, followed by sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) (2). Similar results were obtained in the meta-analysis by Osman et al. (4) where the considered endpoint was live birth rate after ARTs and where TUNEL was again the most predictive technique followed by single cell gel electrophoresis assay (COMET). According to this meta-analysis, when intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was employed to perform ART, none of the tests was predictive of clinical pregnancy (4). In the meta-analysis performed by Cissen et al. (3), where clinical pregnancy after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ICSI was considered as endpoint, only TUNEL and COMET showed a “fair” predictive value, whereas SCSA and sperm chromatin dispersion test (SCD) tests showed a “poor” prediction. Finally, the recent meta-analysis by Simon et al. (5) reports that TUNEL, COMET and SCD were predictive of clinical pregnancy after IVF and ICSI. Although the included studies in these meta-analyses are different, and female factor is neglected in most studies, all appear to agree on the fact that SCSA and SCD techniques are, respectively, not or poorly predictive of ARTs outcomes. The scenario appears different in studies on natural reproduction (6) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) (7), where SCSA technique results were found to be a good predictor of pregnancy. This result was confirmed in a recent study by Ribas-Maynou et al. (8) where also COMET, TUNEL and SCD were predictive of natural pregnancy. Overall, these studies confirm that the different techniques detect different types of damage. This conclusion is supported also by studies investigating the effect of sperm selection techniques on DNA integrity. It has been recently shown that the density gradient centrifugation (DGC) technique provokes an increase of DNA damage in highly motile selected sperm (9,10). However, at variance with TUNEL, such increase does not appear to be detected by SCSA (9). Further studies will be necessary to understand whether also COMET and SCD are able to detect DNA damage after DGC. It must be considered that most studies evaluating SDF before and after DGC selection report the average pre- and post-DGC SDF values, possibly masking effects present in single samples (10). Post-selection DNA damage could highly affect outcomes of ART (10).

Another important consequence of lack of standardization and heterogeneity of the SDF detecting assays is that several threshold values have been proposed to discriminate pathological and normal conditions. This fact contributes to create confusion regarding the introduction of SDF tests in the diagnostic management of infertile men. Hopefully, a committee shall be soon organized to decide which is the gold standard method to evaluate SDF in the couple infertility work-up.

In the review by Agarwal et al. (1), the authors discussed the paper by Esteves et al. (11) which described a subpopulation of sperm with massive nuclear SDF, the so called “degraded sperm”, which is overrepresented in varicocele patients. These authors suggested that patients with varicocele could be identified by the sole examination of semen specimens, provided the differentiation of sperm with fragmented and degraded DNA was performed. These data suggest that besides the type of damage detected, SDF tests should have the ability to focus on the clinically relevant sperm population. Our group has recently demonstrated that a cytometric sperm subpopulation [the so called “brighter sperm” (12)] is a better predictor of natural pregnancy (13). Similarly, focusing on the viable sperm fraction (14) is expected to retain higher clinical value as only viable spermatozoa participate in the fertilization process. Along the same line, it is expected that sperm selected for ARTs should be the clinically relevant sperm subpopulation for prediction of outcomes: evaluating SDF in the fraction used for oocyte fertilization should result indeed in higher prediction. However, whether SDF in selected sperm is more predictive of ARTs respect to neat semen is currently controversial (10,15,16).

Regarding the interesting point of clinical indications raised by the review of Agarwal et al. (1), it should be mentioned that, in addition to the clinical scenarios considered by the authors in Table 2 of the paper, emerging data in the literature suggest that other conditions may benefit from using SDF as diagnostic tool, including men with advanced age (17), diabetes (18,19), presence of inflammatory signs of the lower genital tract (20) and cancer (21-23). Concerning this latter condition, it has to be considered that both the presence of malignancy (as part of the paraneoplastic syndrome (24) and the chemo-radio therapies (23) required to treat cancer, affect DNA integrity of germ cells.

An important question that the clinicians face in case of a patient with high SDF levels is what to do next. Among the possible strategies, the clinician may choose to treat the patient to restore sperm DNA integrity, or to select the most appropriate ART treatment. Considering that testicular apoptosis and oxidative stress are the main mechanisms generating SDF (25,26), compounds able to target these two mechanisms are possible useful tools. Although some studies using antioxidants reported a positive effect in reducing SDF levels (27-29), no clear conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness on reproduction outcome because these studies show several limitations (30). Similarly, although follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) has been used to target testicular apoptosis in several studies, whether the hormone is effective in reducing SDF levels remain to be defined because of the presence of non-responding subjects (31-35). The strategy based on selection of patients according to the FSH receptor (FSHR) genotype before treatment proposed by Simoni et al. (35) appears to be promising. In case of ART treatment, an issue often neglected by clinicians concerns the iatrogenic induction of DNA damage during in vitro sperm manipulation (9,10,36). Indeed, it is well known that SDF may proceed after ejaculation during in vitro incubations similar to those used to fertilize the oocyte by IVF (37-39).

In conclusion, on the road to introduce SDF in the male infertility work-up, more studies are needed addressing three important points: (I) establishing the gold standard technique for each reproductive outcome; (II) finding effective pharmacological treatments to decrease sperm DNA damage in vivo; (III) establishing correct strategies to prepare spermatozoa for ARTs to avoid iatrogenic damage.


Acknowledgements

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Agarwal A, Majzoub A, Esteves SC, et al. Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios. Transl Androl Urol 2016;5:935-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Robinson L, Gallos ID, Conner SJ, et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on miscarriage rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2012;27:2908-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Cissen M, Wely MV, Scholten I, et al. Measuring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Clinical Outcomes of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0165125. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Osman A, Alsomait H, Seshadri S, et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on live birth rate after IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:120-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Simon L, Zini A, Dyachenko A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of sperm DNA damage on in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Asian J Androl 2017;19:80-90. [PubMed]
  6. Zini A. Are sperm chromatin and DNA defects relevant in the clinic? Syst Biol Reprod Med 2011;57:78-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod 2007;22:174-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Ribas-Maynou J, García-Peiró A, Fernández-Encinas A, et al. Comprehensive analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation by five different assays: TUNEL assay, SCSA, SCD test and alkaline and neutral Comet assay. Andrology 2013;1:715-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Aitken RJ, Finnie JM, Muscio L, et al. Potential importance of transition metals in the induction of DNA damage by sperm preparation media. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2136-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Muratori M, Tarozzi N, Cambi M, et al. Variation of DNA Fragmentation Levels During Density Gradient Sperm Selection for Assisted Reproduction Techniques: A Possible New Male Predictive Parameter of Pregnancy? Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3624. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Esteves SC, Gosálvez J, López-Fernández C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sperm DNA degradation index (DDSi) as a potential noninvasive biomarker to identify men with varicocele-associated infertility. Int Urol Nephrol 2015;47:1471-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Muratori M, Marchiani S, Tamburrino L, et al. Nuclear staining identifies two populations of human sperm with different DNA fragmentation extent and relationship with semen parameters. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1035-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Muratori M, Marchiani S, Tamburrino L, et al. DNA fragmentation in brighter sperm predicts male fertility independently from age and semen parameters. Fertil Steril 2015;104:582-90.e4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Mitchell LA, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ. The TUNEL assay consistently underestimates DNA damage in human spermatozoa and is influenced by DNA compaction and cell vitality: development of an improved methodology. Int J Androl 2011;34:2-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Bungum M, Spanò M, Humaidan P, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters measured after density gradient centrifugation are not predictive for the outcome of ART. Hum Reprod 2008;23:4-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Simon L, Castillo J, Oliva R, et al. Relationships between human sperm protamines, DNA damage and assisted reproduction outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23:724-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Johnson SL, Dunleavy J, Gemmell NJ, et al. Consistent age-dependent declines in human semen quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2015;19:22-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Agbaje IM, Rogers DA, McVicar CM, et al. Insulin dependant diabetes mellitus: implications for male reproductive function. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1871-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Agbaje IM, McVicar CM, Schock BC, et al. Increased concentrations of the oxidative DNA adduct 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2-deoxyguanosine in the germ-line of men with type 1 diabetes. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16:401-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Lotti F, Tamburrino L, Marchiani S, et atl. DNA fragmentation in two cytometric sperm populations: relationship with clinical and ultrasound characteristics of the male genital tract. Asian J Androl 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
  21. O’Flaherty C, Vaisheva F, Hales BF, et al. Characterization of sperm chromatin quality in testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients prior to chemotherapy. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1044-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Pérez-Cerezales S, Martínez-Páramo S, Beirão J, et al. Fertilization capacity with rainbow trout DNA-damaged sperm and embryo developmental success. Reproduction 2010;139:989-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. O'Flaherty C. Iatrogenic genetic damage of spermatozoa. Adv Exp Med Biol 2014;791:117-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Agarwal A, Allamaneni SS. Disruption of spermatogenesis by the cancer disease process. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005.9-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Muratori M, Tamburrino L, Marchiani S, et al. Investigation on the Origin of Sperm DNA Fragmentation: Role of Apoptosis, Immaturity and Oxidative Stress. Mol Med 2015;21:109-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Aitken RJ, Bronson R, Smith TB, et al. The source and significance of DNA damage in human spermatozoa; a commentary on diagnostic strategies and straw man fallacies. Mol Hum Reprod 2013;19:475-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Greco E, Iacobelli M, Rienzi L, et al. Reduction of the incidence of sperm DNA fragmentation by oral antioxidant treatment. J Androl 2005;26:349-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Ménézo YJ, Hazout A, Panteix G, et al. Antioxidants to reduce sperm DNA fragmentation: an unexpected adverse effect. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:418-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Gil-Villa AM, Cardona-Maya W, Agarwal A, et al. Role of male factor in early recurrent embryo loss: do antioxidants have any effect? Fertil Steril 2009;92:565-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Tremellen K. Antioxidant therapy for the enhancement of male reproductive health: a critical review of the literature. In: Parekattil SJ, Agarwal A. editors. Male Infertility, Contemporary Clinical Approaches, Andrology, ART & Antioxidants. New York: Springer, 2012;389-99.
  31. Garolla A, Ghezzi M, Cosci I, et al. FSH treatment in infertile males candidate to assisted reproduction improved sperm DNA fragmentation and pregnancy rate. Endocrine 2017;56:416-25. [PubMed]
  32. Ruvolo G, Roccheri MC, Brucculeri AM, et al. Lower sperm DNA fragmentation after r-FSH administration in functional hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30:497-503. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Colacurci N, Monti MG, Fornaro F, et al. Recombinant human FSH reduces sperm DNA fragmentation in men with idiopathic oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. J Androl 2012;33:588-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Palomba S, Falbo A, Espinola S, et al. Effects of highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone on sperm DNA damage in men with male idiopathic subfertility: a pilot study. J Endocrinol Invest. 2011;34:747-52. [PubMed]
  35. Simoni M, Santi D, Negri L, et al. Treatment with human, recombinant FSH improves sperm DNA fragmentation in idiopathic infertile men depending on the FSH receptor polymorphism p.N680S: a pharmacogenetic study. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1960-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  36. Zini A, San Gabriel M. In vitro studies of antioxidants for male reproductive health. In: Parekattil SJ, Agarwal A. editors. Male Infertility, Contemporary Clinical Approaches, Andrology, ART & Antioxidants. New York: Springer, 2012;401-7.
  37. Muratori M, Maggi M, Spinelli S, et al. Spontaneous DNA fragmentation in swim-up selected human spermatozoa during long term incubation. J Androl 2003;24:253-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Gosálvez J, Cortés-Gutiérrez EI, Nuñez R, et al. A dynamic assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation versus sperm viability in proven fertile human donors. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1915-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Rougier N, Uriondo H, Papier S, et al. Changes in DNA fragmentation during sperm preparation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection over time. Fertil Steril 2013;100:69-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Muratori M, Baldi E. Some relevant points on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(Suppl 4):S560-S563. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.47