Abstract
The questionable effectiveness of routine sperm parameters in determining male factor infertility problems and increasing the success rates of assisted reproductive techniques have led to the investigation of more detailed sperm parameters that could affect the male fertility and reproduction. Thus, the effects of different sperm parameters such as sperm DNA integrity was started to be investigated thanks to the previously described methods such as single cell gel electrophoresis (COMET) assay, sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), acridine orange test (AOT), terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine (TdT) triphosphate (dUTP) nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay and sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test. However, studying on sperm DNA might be very complex because the sperm DNA differs from the somatic cell DNA with its unique structure. Also, the sperm DNA undergoes many changes during spermatogenesis and it is condensed by being packaged tightly with different types and numbers of protamines in different species. Despite all these difficulties, these methods provide important information about the reasons and consequences of DNA damages in sperm and the effects of these damages on reproduction.
Keywords: COMET, DNA fragmentation, SCD test, sperm, SCSA, TUNEL
Introduction
Sperm is the male gamete cell which can move and has the ability of capacitation, penetration and fertilization. The ultimate aim of sperm is to maintain the generation by transferring the male genetic material into the ovum, the female gamete cell.
Routine semen examinations are widely used to predict the fertilization ability of sperm. Routine semen parameters consist of sperm concentration, motility, live sperm ratio and morphological examination. However, the previous studies conducted in humans have demonstrated that it is not always possible to achieve an accurate decision about male fertility according to the results of routine semen examinations[1,2] and when all the routine sperm parameters are normal, sperm population of an ejaculate may be subfertile or infertile.[2] Therefore, the effects of more detailed parameters such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) integrity of sperm on the fertility are considered. Previous studies have indicated that percentage of DNA damaged sperm in the sperm population of the individuals could affect the fertilization capacity of their sperm, the qualities of their embryos and pregnancy outcomes achieved after assisted reproductive techniques.[1,3] Thus, it is considered that detection of sperm DNA integrity might provide complementary data to predict fertilization capacity of sperm, quality of embryos obtained from these sperms and success rate of assisted reproductive techniques such as in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The detection of DNA damaged sperm is not only important to find out their harmful effects on reproduction in mammals but also to take preventive measures, and understand the causes and consequences of DNA damage in sperm.
Sperm DNA
The DNA of mammalian sperm is the mostly known compact eukaryotic DNA which is packaged six times more tightly than the tightly packaged mitotic chromosomes of somatic cells.[4] For example, the sperm nucleus of mouse is compacted into a volume that is approximately 20 times smaller than the liver cell nucleus.[5,6] In the mammals, the DNA of sperm is situated as anchored to a single structure which is called the nuclear annulus.[7,8] It is believed that the nuclear annulus is important in the organization of sperm DNA.[8] The previous studies conducted on chromatin condensation during spermiogenesis indicated that this process starts from the anterior tip of sperm head and progresses towards the tail.[9,10] In the process of chromatin condensation, after histones are restructured by transition proteins, they are reconstructed again to finalize their shape by protamines which are DNA-binding proteins of sperm.[11] The protamines are half size of histones and the majority of the amino acids in protamines are arginine.[12] The sperm of different species contain varying numbers of different types of protamines with different amino acid sequences. It was reported that the sperm nuclei of bulls,[13] rams[14] and rats[15] contained a single type of protamine, sperm nuclei of mice[16] and humans[15,17] contained two types of protamines, and sperm nuclei of some fish species[18] contained three different types of protamines.[12] Contrary to the sperm of some species such as bull that has a single type of protamine, the sperm of other species like human consist of two different types of protamines which contain less cysteine.[19] This situation leads to formation of fewer disulfide bonds in the sperm nuclei which contain two different types of protamines and being less stable than those which contain a single type of protamine.[19]
DNA fragmentation in sperm
It is known that DNA damage occurs in sperm due to various reasons. The most common cause of DNA damage in sperm is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs due to the imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense system.[20] The fact that spermatozoon membrane contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acid and its cytoplasm has inadequate antioxidant capacity make spermatozoa highly vulnerable to the attacks of reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxidation.[21,22] For this reason, many different factors can cause oxidative stress and DNA damage in spermatozoa. For example, it was reported that heat stress,[23] cryopreservation of sperm[24,25] and chilling of sperm[26] cause DNA damage in the sperm. It is known that smoking, cancer therapies, varicocele, and cancer can lead to DNA damage in the human sperm.[27] Also, DNA damage can occur in germ cells during spermatogenesis and some DNA damaged germ cells are eliminated via apoptosis.[28] Thus, the disturbances related to the apoptotic mechanism might lead to DNA damaged sperm production.
Detection of DNA fragmentation in sperm
A number of different methods have been described to determine the DNA damaged sperm rate and the degree of these damages. The primary methods are as follows; Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis (COMET) Assay, Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA), Acridine Orange Test (AOT), Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase-Mediated Deoxyuridine (TdT) Triphosphate (dUTP) Nick End Labeling (TUNEL) Assay and Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD) Test.
Single cell gel electrophoresis
The COMET assay was first described by Ostling and Johanson in 1984.[29] They detected double-stranded DNA fragments in somatic cells using neutral lysis and electrophoresis solutions. Neutral COMET assay was evolved later on by two different groups using alkaline solutions.[30,31] Alkaline COMET assay enabled identification of the lower levels of DNA fragments and both single and double strand DNA breaks.[30] In general, COMET assays are based on the evaluation of the comet image which is formed when the DNA, which is revealed after embedding the certain number of sperm into the agar and lysing their cellular proteins and membranes using detergent and high density salt solutions, is exposed to electrophoresis and the existing DNA fragments move further than the main DNA. The basic steps for this technique are summarized below.
The process of embedding of spermatozoa into the agar
At this stage, the researchers covered the slide which had been previously coated with normal melting agar (NMA) with a low melting agar (LMA)-sperm solution which contained a certain number of spermatozoa.[32,33] However, it was observed that some researchers preferred directly spreading the agar-cell solution on the frosted microscope slide or gelbond.[34,35] The aim of using normal melting agar, frosted microscope slide or gelbond as a first layer might be to prevent possible loss of the cell-agar mixture during the lysis and electrophoresis procedures.
The lysis process
The aim of this process to lyse sperm membranes and reveal the sperm DNA during the incubation period in lysis solutions. Several lysis solutions including variety of chemicals have been used for this process at different time intervals in various species.[33,36–39]
The process of electrophoresis
In this process, after the incubation of revealed sperm DNA in neutral or alkaline electrophoresis solution, the revealed sperm DNA is exposed to the electrophoresis in neutral or alkaline conditions. Different electrophoresis solutions, variety of electric powers and application times were used in the electrophoresis process in previous studies.[34,36–39]
Assessment of comet images
In this process, the slides are incubated in the neutralization solution, air dried and stained with DNA specific stains. The stained comet images are assessed subjectively under fluorescence microscope or by computer-assisted COMET assay analysis program linked to fluorescence microscope. COMET assay analysis programs or different computer-assisted image analysis programs were used for the assessment of the comet images in previous studies.[33,38,40,41] The COMET assay specific analysis programs might be the most objective method to be used for the assessment of comet images. Because it is possible to obtain many different parameters from these programs such as tail DNA (%), tail length (μm) and Olive tail moment which show the degree of the DNA damage in individual cells automatically.
Sperm chromatin structure assay
SCSA was described for the first time in 1980.[42] SCSA is based on the principle that DNA damaged sperm are more vulnerable to heat or acid denaturation compared to the intact sperm.[42,43] The denatured DNA damaged sperm are stained red while the intact sperm turn into green when exposed to acid and acridine orange stain.[44] The stained sperm are analyzed by flow cytometry and DNA fragmentation index (DFI) is calculated to determine DNA damaged sperm rate. The greatest advantage of SCSA is that a large number of cells and 1024 discrete channels of red and green fluorescence could be evaluated by flow cytometry.[45,46]
Acridine orange test
Generally, AOT is similar to SCSA but the DNA damaged and intact sperm are classified subjectively under florescence microscope in AOT. When the intact sperm emit green florescence, DNA damaged sperm emit red florescence.[44] After the evaluation of spermazoa according to their color, DNA damaged sperm rate are detected. AOT is simpler and cheap test compared to the SCSA. But, the evaluation of limited number of spermatozoa, the quick loss of florescence emissions under florescence microscope and limited classification of florescence emissions between green and red with naked eye are the disadvantages of AOT.[45–47]
Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labeling assay
TUNEL test is based on detection of single or double stranded DNA fragments marked by dUTP owing to a reaction which are catalyzed by the TdT enzyme. The TUNEL test generally consists of respectively fixation and permeabilization of sperm, marking of DNA fragments, staining and evaluation of sperm stages. In the evaluation process, the sperm can be assessed subjectively under light and fluorescence microscope or by flow cytometry.[48–50] The TUNEL assay can be also used to identify the apoptotic cells in the tissues during histological examinations.[51,52]
Sperm chromatin dispersion test
In classical SCD test, the slides, which are covered with sperm-agar solution, are prepared similarly as in COMET assay procedure. Then, these sperm samples are incubated respectively in acid denaturation solution to reveal fragmented DNA in sperm, in neutralizing-lysing solutions to remove cellular proteins, and in washing and ethanol solutions to wash and dehydrate the samples.[53] The air-dried sperm samples are stained with Diff-Quik stain or DNA specific stains and the sperm samples are evaluated under light or fluorescence microscope.[53] In classical SCD test, while the sperm which produced halo were regarded as intact, the sperm which had no halo were regarded as DNA damaged.[53–55] Contrary to the classical version of SCD test, the sperm which produced halo are regarded as DNA damaged; the sperm which had no halo are regarded as intact in modified commercial version of the SCD test.[55–58]
Comparison of tests used to detect DNA damage in spermatozoa
In humans, SCSA, TUNEL and SCD tests have been found quite effective in detecting DNA damage in sperm contrary to AOT.[46] Although SCSA and AOT have same experimental principles; the reason of different results obtained from these tests might be a consequence of different evaluation procedures.[46] Both COMET assay and SCSA were found to be more sensitive to distinguish and detect DNA damage in mouse spermatozoa which were collected from caput or cauda of epididymidis compared to SCD test and TUNEL assay.[59] Sperm chromatine condensation and the formation of disulphide bridges between protamines maintain during transport of sperm through epididymis. Thus, the sensitivity of these tests might be dependent on sperm maturity.[59]
In conclusion, the previous studies showed that all these tests can be applied to determine the preventive measures, causes and consequences related to DNA damage in sperm. Also, these tests provide complementary information to predict fertilization capacity of sperm, success rates of assisted reproductive techniques and qualities of embryos which are obtained from this sperm. However, the sensitivity of these tests might change dependent on the species, maturational stages of sperm and different evaluation methods. The widespread usage of flow cytometry and computer assisted analysis programs can contribute standardization of the results obtained from different tests. Also evaluation of oxidative stress parameters in sperm might be beneficial to support results of these tests.
Footnotes
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the author.
Financial Disclosure: The author declared that this study has received no financial support.
References
- 1.Samplaski MK, Agarwal A, Sharma R, Sabanegh E. New generation of diagnostic tests for infertility: Review of specialized semen tests. Int J Urol. 2010;17:839–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02619.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02619.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. Int J Androl. 2002;23:25–43. doi: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02599.x. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02599.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sharma RK, Said T, Agarwal A. Sperm DNA damage and its clinical relevance in assessing reproductive outcome. Asian J Androl. 2004;6:139–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ward WS, Coffey DS. DNA Packaging and Organization in Mammalian Spermatozoa: Comparison with Somatic Cells. Biol Reprod. 1991;44:569–74. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod44.4.569. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod44.4.569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wyrobek AJ, Meistrich ML, Furrer R, Bruce WR. Physical characteristics of mouse sperm nuclei. Biophys J. 1976;16:811–25. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(76)85730-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(76)85730-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pienta KJ, Coffey DS. A structural analysis of the role of the nuclear matrix and DNA 1oops in the organization of the nucleus and chromosome. J Cell Sci. 1984;1:123–35. doi: 10.1242/jcs.1984.supplement_1.9. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.1984.Supplement_1.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pruslin FH, Rodman TC. Proteins of demembraned mouse sperm heads. J Biol Chem. 1985;260:5654–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ward WS, Coffey DS. Identification of a sperm nuclear annulus: a sperm DNA anchor. Biol Reprod. 1989;41:361–70. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod41.2.361. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod41.2.361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dooher GB, Bennett K. Fine structural observations on the development of the sperm head in the mouse. Am J Anat. 1973;136:339–62. doi: 10.1002/aja.1001360307. https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001360307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zirkin BR, Soucek DA, Chang TSK. Sperm nuclear packing and regulation during spermatogenesis and fertilization. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1982;151:101–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Rathke CW, Baarends M, Awe S, Renkawitz-Pohl R. Chromatin dynamics during spermiogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1839:155–68. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2013.08.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2013.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Balhorn R. A model for the structure of chromatin in mammalian sperm. J Cell Biol. 1982;93:298–305. doi: 10.1083/jcb.93.2.298. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.93.2.298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Coelingh JP, Monfoort CH, Rozijn TH, Gevers Leuven JA, Schiphof ER, Steyn-Parve P, et al. The complete amino acid sequence of the basic nuclear protein of bull spermatozoa. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1972;285:1–14. doi: 10.1016/0005-2795(72)90174-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(72)90174-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Loir M, Lanneau M. Transformation of ram spermatid chromatin. Exp Cell Res. 1978;115:231–43. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(78)90277-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(78)90277-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Calvin H. Comparative analysis of the nuclear basic proteins in rat, human, guinea pig, mouse, and rabbit spermatozoa. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1976;434:377–89. doi: 10.1016/0005-2795(76)90229-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(76)90229-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Balhorn R, Gledhill BL, Wyrobek AJ. Mouse sperm chromatin proteins: quantitative isolation and partial characterization. Biochemistry. 1977;16:4074–80. doi: 10.1021/bi00637a021. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00637a021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Puwaravutipanich T, Panyim S. The nuclear basic proteins of human testis and ejaculated spermatozoa. Exp Cell Res. 1975;90:153–8. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(75)90368-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(75)90368-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ando T, Watanabe S. A new method for fractionation of protamines and the amino acid sequence of salmine and three components of iridine. Int J Protein Res. 1969;1:221–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3011.1969.tb01646.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3011.1969.tb01646.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Jager S, Wijchman J, Kremer J. Studies on the decondensation of human, mouse, and bull sperm nuclei by heparin and other polyanions. Journal Exp Zool. 1990;256:315–22. doi: 10.1002/jez.1402560311. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402560311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Dorostghoal M, Kazeminejad SR, Shahbazian N, Pourmehdi M, Jabbari A. Oxidative stress status and sperm DNA fragmentation in fertile and infertile men. Andrologia. 2017 doi: 10.1111/and.12762. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.12762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Vernet P, Aitken RJ, Drevet JR. Antioxidant strategies in the epididymis. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2004;216:31–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2003.10.069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2003.10.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pasqualotto FF, Sharma RK, Kobayashi H, Nelson DR, Thomas AJ, Agarwal A. Oxidative Stress in Normospermic Men Undergoing Infertility Evaluation. J Androl. 2001;22:316–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Banks S, King SA, Irvine DS, Saunders PT. Impact of a mild scrotal heat stress on DNA integrity in murine spermatozoa. Reproduction. 2005;129:505–14. doi: 10.1530/rep.1.00531. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hamamah S, Royere D, Nicolle JC. Effects of freezing-thawing on the spermatozoon nucleus: A comparative chromatin cytophotometric study in the porcine and human species. Reprod Nutr Dev. 1990;30:59–64. doi: 10.1051/rnd:19900105. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:19900105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Baumber J, Ball BA, Linfor JJ. Reactive oxygen species and cryopreservation promote DNA fragmentation in equine spermatozoa. J Androl. 2003;24:621–8. doi: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003.tb02714.x. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003.tb02714.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Boe-Hansen GB, Ersboll AK, Greve T. Increasing storage time of extended boar semen reduces sperm DNA integrity. Theriogenology. 2005;63:2006–19. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Schulte RT, Ohl DA, Sigman M, Smith GD. Sperm DNA damage in male infertility: etiologies, assays, and outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:3–12. doi: 10.1007/s10815-009-9359-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9359-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Paul C, Melton DW, Saunders PTK. Do heat stress and deficits in DNA repair pathways have a negative impact on male fertility? Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14:1–8. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gam089. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gam089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ostling O, Johanson JK. Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. Biochemi Biophys Res Commun. 1984;123:291–8. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(84)90411-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-291X(84)90411-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res. 1988;175:184–91. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(88)90265-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(88)90265-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Olive PL. Cell proliferation as a requirement for development of the contact effect-in the Chinese Hamster V79 spheroids. Radiat Res. 1989;117:79–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/3577279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hughes CM, Lewis SEM, McKelvey-Martin VJ, Thompson W. A comparison of baseline and induced DNA damage in human spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men, using a modified comet assay. Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;2:613–9. doi: 10.1093/molehr/2.8.613. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/2.8.613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Küçük N, Aksoy M, Uçan U, Ahmad E, Naseer Z, Ceylan A, et al. Comparison of two different cryopreservation protocols for freezing goat semen. Cryobiology. 2014;68:327–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2014.04.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2014.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Haines AG, Hendry JH, Daniel CP, Morris ID. Increased levels of comet-detected spermatozoa DNA damage following in vivo isotopic- or X-irradiation of spermatogonia. Mutat Res. 2001;495:21–32. doi: 10.1016/s1383-5718(01)00181-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(01)00181-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wilkins RC, Kutzner BC, Truong M, Sanchez-Dardon J, McLean JRN. Analysis of radiation-induced apoptosis in human lymphocytes: flow cytometry using annexin v and propidium iodide versus the neutral comet assay. Cytometry. 2002;48:14–9. doi: 10.1002/cyto.10098. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.10098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Chan PJ, Corselli JU, Patton WC, Jacobson JD, Chan SR, King A. A simple comet assay for archived sperm correlates DNA fragmentation to reduced hyperactivation and penetration of zonafree hamster oocytes. Fetil Steril. 2001;75:186–92. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01655-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01655-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Boe-Hansen GB, Morris ID, Ersbøll AK, Greve T, Christensen P. DNA integrity in sexed bull sperm assessed by neutral Comet assay and sperm chromatin structure assay. Theriogenology. 2005;63:1789–802. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.08.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fraser L, Strzezek J. Effect of different procedures of ejaculate collection, extenders and packages on DNA integrity of boar spermatozoa following freezing–thawing. Anim Reprod Sci. 2007;99:317–29. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2006.06.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2006.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hughes MC, McKelvey-Martin VJ, Lewis SEM. Human sperm DNA integrity assessed by the Comet and ELISA assays. Mutagenesis. 1999;14:71–5. doi: 10.1093/mutage/14.1.71. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/14.1.71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ribas-Maynou J, Garcia-Peiro A, Abad C, Amengual MJ, Navarro J, Benet J. Alkaline and neutral Comet assay profiles of sperm DNA damage in clinical groups. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:652–8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der461. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Simoes R, Feitosa WB, Siqueira AFP, Nichi M, Paula-Lopes FF, Marques MG, et al. Influence of bovine sperm DNA fragmentation and oxidative stress on early embryo in vitro development outcome. Reproduction. 2013;146:433–41. doi: 10.1530/REP-13-0123. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-13-0123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980;210:1131–3. doi: 10.1126/science.7444440. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7444440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.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. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(75)90331-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(75)90331-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Tejada RI, Mitchell JC, Norman A, Marik JJ, Friedman S. A test for the practical evaluation of male fertility by acridine orange (AO) fluorescence. Fertil Steril. 1984;42:87–91. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)47963-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)47963-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1039–49. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.4.1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.4.1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.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. doi: 10.2164/jandrol.05068. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.05068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Duran EH, Gurgan T, Gunalp S, Enginsu ME, Yarali H, Ayhan A. A logistic regression model including DNA status and morphology of spermatozoa for prediction of fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1235–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.5.1235. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.5.1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Erenpreiss J, Jepson K, Giwercman A, Tsarev I, Erenpreisa J, Spano M. Toluidine blue cytometry test for sperm DNA conformation: comparison with the flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure and TUNEL assays. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2277–82. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh417. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Evenson DP, Kasperson K, Wixon RL. Analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation using flow cytometry and other techniques. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2007;65:93–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Üstüner B, Nur Z, Alçay S, Toker MB, Sağirkaya H, Soylu MK. Effect of freezing rate on goat sperm morphology and DNA integrity. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2015;39:110–4. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1407-70. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Rockett JC, Mapp FL, Garges JB, Luft JC, Mori C, Dix DJ. Effects of hyperthermia on spermatogenesis, apoptosis, gene expression, and fertility in adult male mice. Biol Reprod. 2001;65:229–39. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod65.1.229. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod65.1.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Favareto APA, Fernandez CDB, Da Silva DAF, Anselmo-Franci JA, Kempinas WDG. Persistent impairment of testicular histology and sperm motility in adult rats treated with cisplatin at peri-puberty. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2011;109:85–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2011.00688.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2011.00688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Pawar K, Kaul G. Assessment of Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Sperm DNA fragmentation using a sperm chromatin dispersion test. Reprod Domest Anim. 2011;46:964–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01766.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01766.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Gosálvez J, López-Fernández C, Fernández JL. Sperm chromatin dispersion test: technical aspects and clinical applications. In: Zini A, Agarwal A, editors. Sperm Chromatin Biological and Clinical Applications in Male Infertility and Assisted Reproduction. Springer; New York, Dordrecht Heidelberg, London: 2011. pp. 151–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6857-9_10. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Lopez-Fernandez C, Fernandez JL, Gosalbez A, Arroyo F, Vazquez JM, Holt WV, et al. Dynamics of sperm DNA fragmentation in domestic animals III. Ram. Theriogenology. 2008;70:898–8. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.04.055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.04.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lopez-Fernandez C, Johnston SD, Fernandez JL, Wilson RJ, Gosalvez J. Fragmentation dynamics of frozen-thawed ram sperm DNA is modulated by sperm concentration. Theriogenology. 2010;74:1362–70. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.06.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Rodríguez S, Goyanes V, Segrelles E, Blasco M, Gosálvez J, Fernández JL. Critically short telomeres are associated with sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:843–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Perez-Cerezales S, Miranda A, Gutierrez-Adan A. Comparison of four methods to evaluate sperm DNA integrity between mouse caput and cauda epididymidis. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:335–7. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.119. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]