Nuclear DNA Fragmentation in Boar Spermatozoa: Measurement Methods and Reproductive Performance Implications

Application of Flow Cytometry Using Advanced Chromatin Analyses for Assessing Changes in Sperm Structure and DNA Integrity in a Porcine Model

Chromatin status is critical for sperm fertility and reflects spermatogenic success. We tested a multivariate approach for studying pig sperm chromatin structure to capture its complexity with a set of quick and simple techniques, going beyond the usual assessment of DNA damage. Sperm doses from 36 boars (3 ejaculates/boar) were stored at 17 °C and analyzed on days 0 and 11. Analyses were: CASA (motility) and flow cytometry to assess sperm functionality and chromatin structure by SCSA (%DFI, DNA fragmentation; %HDS, chromatin maturity), monobromobimane (mBBr, tiol status/disulfide bridges between protamines), chromomycin A3 (CMA3, protamination), and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG, DNA oxidative damage). Data were analyzed using linear models for the effects of boar and storage, correlations, and multivariate analysis as hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis (PCA). Storage reduced sperm quality parameters, mainly motility, with no critical oxidative stress increases, while chromatin status worsened slightly (%DFI and 8-oxo-dG increased while mBBr MFI-median fluorescence intensity-and disulfide bridge levels decreased). Boar significantly affected most chromatin variables except CMA3; storage also affected most variables except %HDS. At day 0, sperm chromatin variables clustered closely, except for CMA3, and %HDS and 8-oxo-dG correlated with many variables (notably, mBBr). After storage, the relation between %HDS and 8-oxo-dG remained, but correlations among other variables disappeared, and mBBr variables clustered separately. The PCA suggested a considerable influence of mBBr on sample variance, especially regarding storage, with SCSA and 8-oxo-dG affecting between-sample variability. Overall, CMA3 was the least informative, in contrast with results in other species. The combination of DNA fragmentation, DNA oxidation, chromatin compaction, and tiol status seems a good candidate for obtaining a complete picture of pig sperm nucleus status. It raises many questions for future molecular studies and deserves further research to establish its usefulness as a fertility predictor in multivariate models. The usefulness of CMA3 should be clarified.

Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA®) and flow cytometry-assisted TUNEL assay provide a concordant assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation as a function of age in a large cohort of approximately 10,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Sperm DNA integrity is increasingly seen as a critical characteristic determining reproductive success, both in natural reproduction and in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Despite this awareness, sperm DNA and nuclear integrity tests are still not part of routine examinations for either infertile men or fertile men wishing to assess their reproductive capacity. This is not due to the unavailability of DNA and sperm nuclear integrity tests. On the contrary, several relevant but distinct tests are available and have been used in many clinical trials, which has led to conflicting results and confusion. The reasons for this are mainly the lack of standardization between different clinics and between the tests themselves. In addition, the small number of samples analyzed in these trials has often weakened the value of the analyses performed. In the present work, we used a large cohort of semen samples, covering a wide age range, which were simultaneously evaluated for sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) using two of the most frequently used SDF assays, namely the TUNEL assay and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA®). At the same time, as standard seminal parameters (sperm motility, sperm morphology, sperm count) were available for these samples, correlations between age, SDF and conventional seminal parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

We show that the SCSA® and TUNEL assessments of SDF produce concordant data. However, the SDF assessed by TUNEL is systematically lower than that assessed by SCSA®. Regardless of the test used, the SDF increases steadily during aging, while the HDS parameter (High DNA stainability assessed via SCSA®) remains unchanged. In the cohort analyzed, conventional sperm parameters do not seem to discriminate with aging. Only sperm volume and motility were significantly lower in the oldest age group analyzed [50-59 years of age].

CONCLUSIONS

In the large cohort analyzed, SDF is an age-dependent parameter, increasing linearly with aging. The SCSA® assessment of SDF and the flow cytometry-assisted TUNEL assessment are well correlated, although TUNEL is less sensitive than SCSA®. This difference in sensitivity should be taken into account in the final assessment of the true level of fragmentation of the sperm nucleus of a given sample. The classical sperm parameters (motility, morphology, sperm count) do not change dramatically with age, making them inadequate to assess the fertility potential of an individual.