Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

  • 제47권4호
  • /
  • Pages.277-283
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2233-8233(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8241(eISSN)
대한생식의학회 (The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure

  • 투고 : 2020.06.02
  • 심사 : 2020.07.27
  • 발행 : 2020.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) guides the clinician's choice of an appropriate assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. The DFI can be determined using commercially available methodologies, including sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) kits and sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Currently, when DFI is evaluated using SCD kits, the result is analyzed in reference to the SCSA-derived threshold for the choice of an ART procedure. In this study, we compared DFI values obtained using SCSA with those obtained using SCD and determined whether the difference affects the choice of ART procedure. Methods: We compared SCSA to two SCD kits, CANfrag (n=36) and Halosperm (n=31), to assess the DFI values obtained, the correlations between tests, the technical repeatability, and the impact of DFI on the choice of ART. Results: We obtained higher median DFI values using SCD kits than when using SCSA, and this difference was significant for the CANfrag kit (p<0.001). The SCD kits had significantly higher coefficients of variation than SCSA (p<0.001). In vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) would be chosen for a significantly higher proportion of patients if a decision were made based on DFI derived from SCD rather than DFI determined using SCSA (p=0.003). Conclusion: Our results indicate that SCD kit-specific thresholds should be established in order to avoid the unnecessary use of IVF/ICSI based on sperm DNA damage for the management of infertility. Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate the increased variability inherent to the methods used in these tests.

키워드

과제정보

We thank the patients who participated in this study. We would also like to acknowledge Professor Don Evenson for his valuable input.

참고문헌

  1. Bareh GM, Jacoby E, Binkley P, Chang TC, Schenken RS, Robinson RD. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation assessment in normozoospermic male partners of couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 2016;105:329-36.
  2. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erenpreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod 2007;22:174-9.
  3. Dar S, Grover SA, Moskovtsev SI, Swanson S, Baratz A, Librach CL. In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome in patients with a markedly high DNA fragmentation index ( > 50%). Fertil Steril 2013;100:75-80.
  4. Leach M, Aitken RJ, Sacks G. Sperm DNA fragmentation abnormalities in men from couples with a history of recurrent miscarriage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015;55:379-83.
  5. Micinski P, Pawlicki K, Wielgus E, Bochenek M, Tworkowska I. The sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) as prognostic factor in IVF/ICSI program. Reprod Biol 2009;9:65-70.
  6. Oleszczuk K, Giwercman A, Bungum M. Sperm chromatin structure assay in prediction of in vitro fertilization outcome. Andrology 2016;4:290-6.
  7. Spano M, Bonde JP, Hjollund HI, Kolstad HA, Cordelli E, Leter G. Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril 2000;73:43-50.
  8. Virro MR, Larson-Cook KL, Evenson DP. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters are related to fertilization, blastocyst development, and ongoing pregnancy in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1289-95.
  9. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 1980;210:1131-3.
  10. Fernandez JL, Muriel L, Rivero MT, Goyanes V, Vazquez R, Alvarez JG. The sperm chromatin dispersion test: a simple method for the determination of sperm DNA fragmentation. J Androl 2003;24:59-66.
  11. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1039-49.
  12. Simon L, Zini A, Dyachenko A, Ciampi A, Carrell DT. 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.
  13. Evenson DP. Evaluation of sperm chromatin structure and DNA strand breaks is an important part of clinical male fertility assessment. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(Suppl 4):S495-500.
  14. Evenson DP, Wixon R. Data analysis of two in vivo fertility studies using Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay-derived DNA fragmentation index vs. pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1229-31.
  15. Gosalvez J, Lopez-Fernandez C, Fernandez JL. Sperm chromatin dispersion test: technical aspects and clinical applications. In: Zini A, Agarwal A. editors. Sperm chromatin dispersion test: technical aspects and clinical applications. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 151-70.
  16. Chohan KR, Griffin JT, Lafromboise M, de Jonge CJ, Carrell DT. Comparison of chromatin assays for DNA fragmentation evaluation in human sperm. J Androl 2006;27:53-9.
  17. Fernandez JL, Muriel L, Goyanes V, Segrelles E, Gosalvez J, Enciso M, et al. Simple determination of human sperm DNA fragmentation with an improved sperm chromatin dispersion test. Fertil Steril 2005;84:833-42.
  18. Nunez-Calonge R, Caballero P, Lopez-Fernandez C, Guijarro JA, Fernandez JL, Johnston S, et al. An improved experimental model for understanding the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation on human pregnancy following ICSI. Reprod Sci 2012;19:1163-8.
  19. Velez de la Calle JF, Muller A, Walschaerts M, Clavere JL, Jimenez C, Wittemer C, et al. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as assessed by the sperm chromatin dispersion test in assisted reproductive technology programs: results of a large prospective multicenter study. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1792-9.
  20. Ribas-Maynou J, Garcia-Peiro A, Fernandez-Encinas A, Abad C, Amengual MJ, Prada E, 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.
  21. Kunkitti P, Sjodahl A, Bergqvist AS, Johannisson A, Axner E. Comparison of DNA fragmentation assay in frozen-thawed cat epididymal sperm. Reprod Domest Anim 2016;51:618-22.
  22. Ortiz I, Urbano M, Dorado J, Morrell JM, Al-Essawe E, Johannisson A, et al. Comparison of DNA fragmentation of frozen-thawed epididymal sperm of dogs using Sperm Chromatin Structure Analysis and Sperm Chromatin Dispersion test. Anim Reprod Sci 2017;187:74-8.
  23. Darzynkiewicz Z, Traganos F, Sharpless T, Melamed MR. Thermal denaturation of DNA in situ as studied by acridine orange staining and automated cytofluorometry. Exp Cell Res 1975;90:411-28.
  24. Javed A, Talkad MS, Ramaiah MK. Evaluation of sperm DNA fragmentation using multiple methods: a comparison of their predictive power for male infertility. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2019;46:14-21.
  25. Liffner S, Pehrson I, Garcia-Calvo L, Nedstrand E, Zalavary S, Hammar M, et al. Diagnostics of DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa: are sperm chromatin structure analysis and sperm chromatin dispersion tests (SCD-HaloSpermG2®) comparable? Andrologia 2019;51:e13316.
  26. Majzoub A, Agarwal A, Cho CL, Esteves SC. Sperm DNA fragmentation testing: a cross sectional survey on current practices of fertility specialists. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(Suppl 4):S710-9.