Quantification of seminal germ cells in azoospermia: correlations with testicular histology and TESE outcome

Differentiation between nonobstructive azoospermia and obstructive azoospermia: then and now

Male infertility has seen an increase in prevalence with cases of azoospermia estimated to affect 10%-15% of infertile men. Confirmation of azoospermia subsequently necessitates an early causal differentiation between obstructive azoospermia (OA) and nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). Although less common when compared to NOA, OA can represent upward 20%-40% of cases of azoospermia. While there are a multitude of etiologies responsible for causing NOA and OA, correctly distinguishing between the two types of azoospermia has profound implications in managing the infertile male. This review represents an amalgamation of the current guidelines and literature which will supply the reproductive physician with a diagnostic armamentarium to properly distinguish between NOA and OA, therefore providing the best possible care to the infertile couple.

Molecular analysis of testis biopsy and semen pellet as complementary methods with histopathological analysis of testis in non-obstructive azoospermia

PURPOSE

Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is one the many causes of male infertility (10 %) resulting from testicular failure. Multiple testicular biopsies fail to find mature sperm in at least 50 % of cases Therefore; hunting for sensitive and specific biomarkers of spermatogenesis that could better determine the fertility status in NOA can lead to improved management of male infertility. Therefore, we evaluated sperm production through analyses of germ cell-specific transcripts (DAZ, TSPY1, SPTRX3 and SPTRX1) in semen and testicular biopsies of men with azoospermia.

METHODS

We collected semen (N=83) and testis biopsies (N=31) from men with non-obstructive azoospermia. We later extracted RNA and synthesized cDNA using washed semen precipitate and testicular tissues. We also performed semi-nested PCR with designed specific primers. Using H&E method, an expert pathologist performed the histopathological evaluation. Having categorized the patients into three groups based on histopathological results, we calculated the agreement between molecular results of semen and tissues with histopathological findings for each patient using Kappa statistical test.

RESULTS

Molecular findings of precipitated semen and testicular tissues were in disagreement with histopathological results in most cases. Molecular analysis of testis biopsies showed significant difference (Kappa coefficient=0.009, P value=0.894) with histopathological results; TSPY1, DAZ, SPTRX3 and SPTRX1 were respectively detected in 94 %, 94 %, 17.6 % and 52.9 % of men diagnosed with germ cell aplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular analysis of semen does not provide sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be used as a screening test at the present time, but it is a useful adjunct to histopathological methods in men with NOA. Spermatid/sperm specific transcripts indicated the possibility to find mature sperm following repeated multiple testicular sperm extraction (TESE) or microdisection TESE (mTESE).

Cytogenetic and molecular analyses of de novo translocation dic(9;13)(p11.2;p12) in an infertile male

BACKGROUND

Whole arm t(9;13)(p11;p12) translocations are rare and have been described only a few times; all of the previously reported cases were familial.

RESULTS

We present here an infertile male carrier with a whole-arm reciprocal translocation dic(9;13)(p11.2;p12) revealed by GTG-, C-, and NOR-banding karyotypes with no mature sperm cells in his ejaculate. FISH and genome-wide 400 K CGH microarray (Agilent) analyses demonstrated a balanced chromosome complement and further characterised the abnormality as a dicentric chromosome (9;13): dic(9;13)(pter→p11.2::p12→qter),neo(9)(pter→p12→neo→p11.2). An analysis of the patient's ejaculated cells identified immature germ cells at different phases of spermatogenesis but no mature spermatozoa. Most (82.5%) of the germ cells were recognised as spermatocytes at stage I, and the cell nuclei were most frequently found in pachytene I (41.8%). We have also undertaken FISH analysis and documented an increased rate of aneuploidy of chromosomes 15, 18, X and Y in the peripheral blood leukocytes of our patient. To study the aneuploidy risk in leukocytes, we have additionally included 9 patients with non-obstructive azoospermia with normal karyotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that the azoospermia observed in the patient with the dic(9;13)(p11.2;p12) translocation was most likely a consequence of a very high proportion (90%) of association between XY bivalents and quadrivalent formations in prophase I.