Understanding sperm DNA fragmentation

Unraveling the Impact of Sperm DNA Fragmentation on Reproductive Outcomes

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying subcellular causes of male infertility, and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) research has been at the forefront of this focus. DNA damage can occur during spermatogenesis due to faulty chromatin compaction or excessive abortive apoptosis. It can also happen as sperm transit through the genital tract, often induced by oxidative stress. There are several methods for SDF testing, with the sperm chromatin structure assay, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase d-UTI nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay, comet assay, and sperm chromatin dispersion test being the most commonly used. Numerous studies strongly support the negative impact of SDF on male fertility potential. DNA damage has been linked to various morphological and functional sperm abnormalities, ultimately affecting natural conception and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. This evidence-based review aims to explore how SDF influences male reproduction and provide insights into available therapeutic options to minimize its detrimental impact.

Reproductive Outcomes of Different Sperm Selection Techniques for ICSI Patients with Abnormal Sperm DNA Fragmentation: a Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of the study is to compare the reproductive outcomes of different sperm selection techniques: density gradient centrifugation (DGC), testicular sperm (Testi), physiological ICSI (PICSI), and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) in abnormal sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) ICSI patients. A randomized controlled trial included 302 patients with abnormal SDF undergoing ICSI where they were randomized into 4 groups: a control group of DGC (n= 72), Testi (n=73), PICSI (n=78), and MACS (n=79). Results showed no significant differences in the male age, female age, or SDF between the four groups. Testi group had significantly lower cleavage and blastulation rates compared to PICSI, DGC, or MACS groups (p =0.001). For the high-quality blastocysts, DGC and MACS groups had significantly higher rate than the Testi group (p =0.014). The highest pregnancy rate was scored for the PICSI group (69.6%), while the lowest pregnancy rate was scored for the DGC group (51.4%) with (p =0.025). The PICSI group showed a significantly higher implantation rate compared to the other groups (p =0.003). Regarding the ongoing pregnancy rate, the significant difference was observed between the PICSI (62.8%) and MACS (62%) vs. DGC (45.8%). Besides, no significant differences were found in the miscarriage rates between the four groups. In conclusion, PICSI and MACS along with DGC showed significant improvement in embryological and clinical outcome over testicular sperm or sperm processed by DGC alone in patients with abnormal SDFRegistration number: NCT04482517.

Sperm DNA fragmentation testing: Summary evidence and clinical practice recommendations

We herein summarise the evidence concerning the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation in various clinical infertility scenarios and the advances on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. The collected evidence was used to formulate 41 recommendations. Of these, 13 recommendations concern technical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation testing, including pre‐analytical information, clinical thresholds and interpretation of results. The remaining 28 recommendations relate to indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing and clinical management. Clinical scenarios like varicocele, unexplained infertility, idiopathic infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, fertility counselling for men with infertility risk factors and sperm cryopreservation have been contemplated. The bulk evidence supporting the recommendations has increased in recent years, but it is still of moderate to low quality. This guideline provides clinicians with advice on best practices in sperm DNA fragmentation testing. Also, recommendations are provided on possible management strategies to overcome infertility related to sperm DNA fragmentation, based on the best available evidence. Lastly, we identified gaps in knowledge and opportunities for research and elaborated a list of recommendations to stimulate further investigation.

Paternal age and assisted reproductive technology: problem solver or trouble maker?

In our society, the number of couples with advanced reproductive age seeking fertility treatment is increasing steadily. While the negative effect of female age on assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes is well established, the impact of paternal age needs to be clarified. We reviewed the current literature to determine whether advanced paternal age affects the results of ART and the health of resulting offspring. We found that the published literature is overall supportive of a positive association between advanced paternal age (>40 years) and semen quality deterioration. However, the existing evidence does not corroborate nor discard the influence of advanced paternal age on ART outcomes. Similarly, the effect of paternal age on the health of ART offspring remains equivocal, although data from naturally-conceived children clearly indicates that advanced paternal age increases the frequency of genetic, neurodevelopmental, and psychiatric diseases in the progeny. Noteworthy, the current literature is limited and subjected to bias due to the impact of maternal age as a critical confounder. Health care providers should discuss with concerned couples the available options to counteract the possible negative influence of advanced paternal age on ART outcomes and health of resulting offspring. These include identification and treatment of underlying conditions with potential negative long-term effects on fertility, sperm freezing at a young age, and use of antioxidant supplements for men at risk of excessive oxidative stress. Aged male partner from couples undergoing ART, in particular men of 50 years and older, should consider use of preimplantation genetic testing as a means to detect embryo abnormalities and select euploid embryos for transfer to the uterine cavity.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.