An additional marker for sperm DNA quality evaluation in spermatozoa of male partners of couples undergoing assisted reproduction technique (IVF/ICSI): Protamine ratio

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the protamine ratio (P1/P2), DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa and protamine deficiency. Patients were grouped into fertile (G1; n = 151) and sub‐fertile (G2; n = 121). DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa was analysed by a TUNEL assay (termi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Andrologia Vol. 51; no. 10; pp. e13400 - n/a
Main Authors: Amor, Houda, Shelko, Nyaz, Hamad, Mohammed F., Zeyad, Ali, Hammadeh, Mohamad Eid
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Germany John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.11.2019
Subjects:
Adult
Biomarkers - analysis
Biomarkers - metabolism
Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNA
DNA damage
DNA Fragmentation
DNA nucleotidylexotransferase
Humans
In Situ Nick-End Labeling
Infertility, Male - diagnosis
Infertility, Male - therapy
Labeling
Male
male infertility
Middle Aged
Protamine
protamine deficiency
protamine ratio
Protamines - analysis
Protamines - metabolism
Semen Analysis - methods
Sperm
sperm DNA
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
Spermatozoa - metabolism
protamine deficiency
sperm DNA
male infertility
protamine ratio
DNA fragmentation
ISSN:0303-4569, 1439-0272, 1439-0272
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the protamine ratio (P1/P2), DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa and protamine deficiency. Patients were grouped into fertile (G1; n = 151) and sub‐fertile (G2; n = 121). DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa was analysed by a TUNEL assay (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase‐mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick‐end labelling), and the protamination was determined by CMA3 staining, while Western blot was used to measure protamine P1 and P2. While sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and protamine ratio were significantly elevated in G2 compared with G1 (12.31 ± 7.01% vs. 17.5 ± 9.5%; p = .001) and (0.91 ± 0.43 vs. 0.75 ± 0.42; p = .003); respectively, the CMA3 positive showed no difference at all between G1 and G2. In G1, the CMA3 positive correlated negatively with the P1/P2 ratio and SDF (r = −.586, r = −.297; p = .001 respectively). In contrast, the protamine ratio correlated positively with SDF (r = .356; p = .001). In G2, no correlation was observed between CMA3 positive, SDF and the P1/P2 ratio but the P1/P2 ratio showed a positive correlation with SDF (r = .479; p = .001). In conclusion, the spermatozoa DNA deterioration was closely associated with abnormal protamination but showed an association with the protamine ratio, more than with CMA3 positive. Therefore, for the evaluation of DNA damage in spermatozoa, the P1/P2 ratio might act as an additional biomarker.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0303-4569
1439-0272
1439-0272
DOI:10.1111/and.13400