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.