PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of jargspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
 
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 January; 27(1): 3–12.
Published online 2009 December 12. doi:  10.1007/s10815-009-9359-x
PMCID: PMC2826626

Sperm DNA damage in male infertility: etiologies, assays, and outcomes

Abstract

Male factor infertility is the sole cause of infertility in approximately 20% of infertile couples, with an additional 30% to 40% secondary to both male and female factors. Current means of evaluation of male factor infertility remains routine semen analysis including seminal volume, pH, sperm concentration, motility, and morphology. However, approximately 15% of patients with male factor infertility have a normal semen analysis and a definitive diagnosis of male infertility often cannot be made as a result of routine semen analysis. Attention has focused on the role of sperm nuclear DNA integrity in male factor infertility. Here we review the structure of human sperm chromatin, the etiology and mechanisms of sperm DNA damage, current tests available to assess sperm DNA integrity, and effect of sperm DNA integrity on reproductive outcomes.

Keywords: Etiologies, Assays, Sperm, DNA Damage

Introduction

Male factor infertility is the sole cause of infertility in approximately 20% of infertile couples, with an additional 30% to 40% secondary to both male and female factors [90, 120]. Thus, male factor infertility is present in approximately half of all infertile couples. Current means of evaluation of male factor infertility remains routine semen analysis including seminal volume, pH, sperm concentration, motility, and morphology [125]. However, approximately 15% of patients with male factor infertility have a normal semen analysis [1] and a definitive diagnosis of male infertility often cannot be made as a result of routine semen analysis [19].

Over the past decade, there has been a growing body of research investigating the role of sperm nuclear DNA integrity in male factor infertility. It has been suggested that sperm DNA integrity may be a better predictor of male fertility than routine semen analysis. There is evidence that sperm of infertile men contain more DNA damage than fertile men and that this sperm DNA damage may have a negative effect on fertility potential of these patients [40, 55, 71, 114, 127, 130]. While high levels of sperm DNA damage often correlate with poor seminal parameters such as reduced count and motility or abnormal morphology [65, 80, 92], sperm DNA damage is also found in 8% of men with normal seminal parameters [127, 130]. Additionally, there have been concerns about potential consequences of the use of DNA damaged sperm in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as this technique overrides the process of natural selection [109].

Although there has been a significant amount of research on human sperm DNA integrity over the last decade, our understandings of mechanisms of sperm DNA damage and their effects on reproductive outcomes are far from complete. Additionally, there continues to be questions and controversies as to how to best apply this knowledge to clinical practice. What exactly do these tests measure? What are the normal and abnormal thresholds? What do abnormal results mean in terms of clinical recommendations to the patients? Are there effective treatments to improve sperm DNA integrity?

In this review article, we will review the structure of human sperm chromatin, the etiology and mechanisms of sperm DNA damage, current tests available to assess sperm DNA integrity, and effect of sperm DNA integrity on reproductive outcomes.

Sperm chromatin structure

Chromatin of mammalian sperm has a unique structure that is highly organized, condensed, and compacted. This allows protection of the paternal genome during transport through the male and female reproductive tracts and its subsequent delivery to the ova in good condition. Mammalian sperm DNA is the most tightly compacted eukaryotic DNA [124]. This feature is in contrast DNA structure in somatic cell nuclei. Somatic cell nuclear DNA is wrapped around an octamer of histones and packaged into nucleosomes and then further coiled into a solenoid [84]. This type of packaging adds histones, which increase chromatin volume. Sperm cell nuclei simply do not have the volume for this type of packaging and thus must undergo a different type of packaging [124].

During spermiogenesis, sperm chromatin undergo a series of modifications in which histones are lost and replaced with transition proteins and subsequently with protamines [27, 68, 77]. Protamines are approximately half the size of histones [44]. The DNA strands are highly condensed by these protamines and form the basic packaging unit of sperm chromatin, a toroid. The toroids are further compacted by the intramolecular and intermolecular disulfide cross-links between cysteine residues present in protamines [72]. All of these levels of compaction and organization help to protect sperm chromatin during transport through the male and female reproductive tract and also ensures the paternal genome is delivered in a form that allows developing embryo to accurately express genetic information [103].

Although human sperm chromatin contains this highly organized and compact structure, it is less compact than in other mammals. Approximately 15% of histones are retained in human sperm chromatin subsequently making chromatin less tightly compacted [11, 47]. Infertile men have been reported to have a higher histone to protamine ratio in their sperm chromatin [94, 116]. Human sperm also contain two types of protamines, P1 and P2. P2 protamines contain fewer cysteine groups and thus contain less disulfide crosslinks [25]. This theoretically leaves the DNA more susceptible to damage. It has been reported that altered P2 expression is common in men with infertility [18].

Etiologies and mechanisms of sperm DNA damage

There are several different levels of sperm chromatin abnormalities that are important to consider: 1) damage to the actual DNA physical integrity in the form of single-stranded or double-stranded DNA strand breaks, 2) nuclear protein defects that may interfere with histone to protamine conversion and subsequent DNA compaction, and 3) chromatin structural abnormalities causing altered tertiary chromatin configuration. Environmental stress, gene mutations, and chromosomal abnormalities can all disturb biochemical events that occur during spermatogenesis, which can ultimately lead to abnormal chromatin structure incompatible with fertility [41]. Ova are able to repair sperm DNA damage to a certain extent [48]. However, when sperm DNA damage is extensive, ovum may not have repair capacities to allow normal development.

Etiologic factors

There are a variety of etiologic factors that have been associated with sperm DNA fragmentation and/or impaired chromatin integrity. These causes are many and range from environmental conditions such as cigarette smoking [99], irradiation [8], and chemotherapy [20, 88] to pathophysiologic conditions such as leukocytospermia [5, 35], varicoceles [105, 107], and cancer [70]. Even iatrogenic causes such as sperm cryopreservation [32, 73] have been associated with sperm DNA damage. Exact molecular mechanisms by which these conditions lead to sperm DNA damage and/or chromatin abnormalities are not fully understood, but there are currently three main theories which we will review: 1) chromatin packaging abnormalities, 2) reactive oxygen species, and 3) apoptosis.

Chromatin packaging abnormalities

As discussed previously, during spermiogenesis, sperm chromatin undergoes an important step in remodeling in which histones are replaced by protamines. This chromatin remodeling is facilitated by the coordinated loosening of chromatin by histone hyper-acetylation as well as the enzyme DNA topoisomerase II (topo II) which produces temporary nicks in the sperm DNA to relieve torsional stress resulting from supercoiling [74, 83, 85]. These temporary nicks are then normally repaired by this same enzyme, topo II, prior to completion of spermiogenesis and ejaculation. However, if these nicks are not repaired, DNA fragmented sperm may be present in the ejaculate [91].

Reactive oxygen species

Sperm DNA damage has also been associated high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS; [10]). At low levels, ROS play an important role in sperm maturation and functions such as capacitation and the acrosome reaction [30]. Seminal plasma contains antioxidants which help protect sperm DNA [122]. However, when an excessive amount of ROS is produced beyond the antioxidant capacity of seminal plasma and male reproductive tract, the pathogenic result is often cellular and DNA damage [3, 30]. Increased levels of ROS have been reported in the semen of approximately 25% of infertile men [128]. Additionally, a positive correlation was reported between sperm DNA fragmentation and ROS [10]. Major sources of ROS in semen are leukocytes and the sperm themselves, particularly immature sperm with cytoplasmic retention and abnormal head morphology characterized by retention of residual cytoplasm [2, 51, 95]. Both leukocytospermia and retention of residual cytoplasm within sperm have been associated with increased sperm DNA damage, likely secondary to increased level of ROS produced by these cells [5, 35, 43].

Apoptosis

Another theory of sperm DNA damage is through abortive apoptosis. Apoptosis is a process of programmed cell death that occurs in many cells throughout the body. In the testes, apoptosis normally occurs to prevent the overproduction of germ cells and to selectively destroy injured germ cells [113]. Sertoli cells are only able to support a limited number of germ cells in the testis. Clonal expansion of germ cells is in excess and thus apoptosis is necessary to limit the size of the germ cell population to one which Sertoli cells are able to support [101]. It has been suggested that this apoptotic pathway is triggered by the interaction of Fas Ligand (FasL) secreted by Sertoli cells with the Fas protein located in the germ cell surface [78]. However, there has been more recent evidence that this may not always be the case as FasL defective mice still show evidence of germ cell apoptosis [61]. Men with poor seminal parameters often display a large percentage of Fas expressing sperm in the ejaculate [103]. This has led to the suggestion that some of these sperm with DNA damage and Fas expression have undergone “abortive apoptosis”, in which they started but subsequently escaped the apoptotic pathway [104]. There has been controversy regarding this theory as some studies have found no correlation between DNA damage and Fas expression and other markers of apoptosis [86, 92]. Interestingly, recent loss-of-function studies indicate that DNA damage checkpoints occur during spermatogenesis and may involve excision repair genes, mismatch repair genes, and p53 [97].

Tests of sperm DNA integrity

Over the years, there have been an increasing number of tests developed to assess sperm DNA integrity. Mechanisms by which sperm DNA integrity is assessed in these assays varies, with some measuring abnormalities in sperm chromatin structure while other directly measure DNA strand breaks.

Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA)

The SCSA was first described over 25 years ago [38]. This assay is based on the premise that DNA in sperm with abnormal chromatin structure is more prone to acid or heat denaturation [29, 100]. Using the metachromatic properties of acridine orange (AO), SCSA measures susceptibility of sperm DNA to acid-induced denaturation in situ. By quantifying this metachromatic shift of AO from green to red after acid treatment using flow cytometry, the extent of DNA denaturation is determined [29, 38]. The parameter obtained by SCSA most commonly referred to in the literature is DNA fragmentation index (DFI), a measure of DNA denaturation.

Acridine orange test

The acridine orange test (AOT) is based on similar principles as the SCSA in which the metachromatic shift of AO from green to red is used to determine extent of DNA denaturation. The AOT is simpler and less expensive than the SCSA since it can be done by visual interpretation under fluorescent microscopy without the need for flow cytometry or a SCSA trained technician [118]. However, issues of indistinct colors, rapid fading, and the heterogeneous staining can cause difficulties during visual interpretation [22].

Toluidine blue

Toluidine blue (TB) is a basic dye used to evaluate sperm chromatin integrity. Phosphate residues of sperm DNA in nuclei with loosely packed chromatin and/or impaired DNA are more liable to binding with basic dyes such as TB [87]. Thus, using light microscopy, damaged sperm will be stained blue while normal sperm will remain colorless.

Aniline blue

Aniline blue is an acidic dye which is used to evaluate sperm chromatin integrity. Sperm with impaired DNA often display the presence of residual histones. These residual histones lead to looser chromatin packaging allowing increased accessibility of basic groups of the nucleoprotein and subsequently liable to bind acidic dyes such as aniline blue [9, 28].

TUNEL

The terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated (TdT) deoxyuridine triphosphate (dUTP) nick end labeling assay (TUNEL) is a direct quantification of sperm DNA breaks [52]. dUTP is incorporated at single-stranded and double stranded DNA breaks in a reaction catalyzed by the enzyme TdT. The DNA breaks based on the incorporated dUTP are then labeled and can be measured using bright field or fluorescent microscopy as well as flow cytometry [52]. Sperm are then classified as TUNEL positive or negative and expressed as a percentage of the total sperm in the population. Typical results of the TUNEL assay are shown in Fig. 1A.

Fig. 1
Sperm DNA fragmentation assays. A. TUNEL assay. Blue sperm are TUNEL negative while green sperm are TUNEL positive indicating DNA fragmentation. B. Sperm Chromatin Dispersion Test. The two sperm in the center with non-fragmented DNA form large halos, ...

In situ nick translation assay

The in situ nick translation (NT) assay is similar to the TUNEL assay in that it quantifies incorporation of dUTP into DNA breaks. However, in contrast to TUNEL which identifies both single-stranded and double-stranded DNA breaks, the in situ NT assay only identifies single-stranded DNA breaks in a reaction catalyzed by the template-dependent enzyme, DNA polymerase I. Although this can be a relatively simple test to perform, it lacks sensitivity when compared to other assays [122].

COMET

The single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay is another test for direct assessment of sperm DNA breaks [56]. Decondensed sperm are suspended in an agarose gel, subjected to an electrophoretic gradient, stained with fluorescent DNA-binding dye, and then imaged with imaging software. Low-molecular weight DNA, short fragments of both single-stranded and double-stranded DNA, will migrate during electrophoresis giving the characteristic comet tail [69]. High-molecular weight intact segments of DNA will not migrate and remain in the head of the “comet.” Imaging software is then use to measure comet tail length and tail fluorescent intensity, which are increased in sperm with high levels of DNA strand breaks [64, 112].

Sperm chromatin dispersion test

The sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test is based on induced condensation which is directly linked with sperm DNA fragmentation [93]. Intact sperm are immersed in an agarose matrix on a slide, treated with an acid solution to denature, and then treated with a lysis buffer to remove sperm membranes and proteins giving rise to nucleoids with a central core and a peripheral halo of dispersed DNA loops. Sperm with non-fragmented DNA release their DNA loops forming large halos (Fig. 1B). However, sperm which produce a very small halo or no halo at all contain DNA fragmentation [42]. Sperm can be stained with Wright's stain for visualization under bright field microscopy or an appropriate fluorescent dye for visualization under fluorescent microscopy.

Correlations with other tests

As displayed above, there are many tests to measure sperm DNA integrity. Although the mechanisms by which sperm DNA integrity is assessed in these assays varies, most tests of sperm DNA integrity generally correlate well with each other. The SCSA has been shown to have a significant positive correlation with multiple other assays including COMET [7], TUNEL [22, 102], toluidine blue staining [36], and SCD test [22]. TUNEL has also been shown to have a strong positive correlation with toluidine blue staining [36] and the AOT [127, 130]. However, more recently, AOT was shown to display extreme variations for sperm DNA fragmentation [22]. While SCSA, TUNEL, and the SCD test predicted similar levels of DNA fragmentation, AOT consistently showed higher levels of DNA fragmentation and interestingly had no significant correlation with SCSA [22].

Standard seminal parameters of sperm concentration, motility, and morphology have been consistently shown to have a negative correlation with levels of sperm DNA fragmentation whether measured by COMET [65], TUNEL [11, 127, 130], or SCSA [40, 105, 107]. While degree of correlation is somewhat variable between studies, they consistently indicate that sperm from patients with abnormal sperm concentration, motility, and morphology have increased levels of DNA damage.

Another important aspect to consider in evaluating these tests is their repeatability over time in the same patient. Standard seminal parameters of sperm concentration, motility, and normal morphology can be highly variable over time within individuals [4, 6, 82]. In comparison, measures of sperm DNA damage has been shown to have good stability over time within individual with TUNEL [110, 111] and SCSA assays [39, 127, 130]. Earlier studies have reported low coefficients of variation (CV) of 10% [39] and 21 % [127, 130] of DFI with the SCSA. However, a recent study with a larger study population reported a significant intra-individual variation with a CV of 29% and recommended that SCSA be repeated when the DFI in the first measurement is >20% [34].

Sperm DNA damage and reproductive outcomes

In vivo fertilization

Increasing evidence suggests that sperm DNA damage has a negative impact on male fertility potential [40, 45, 62, 105107, 114, 129]. These studies utilized a variety of different assays to analyze sperm DNA integrity but consistently showed that infertile men have a significantly higher level of sperm DNA damage when compared with fertile men. A threshold value of 20% sperm DNA fragmentation with TUNEL assay has been suggested to distinguish between fertile controls and infertile men [110, 111]. Additionally, ≥30% or >40% DFI as measured by the SCSA has also been suggested as specific threshold levels, above which the chance of pregnancy approaches zero [40, 114]. However, these proposed thresholds are based on few patients that actually exceed the threshold. The study by Evenson and coworkers included only 10 patients with a DFI greater than the proposed threshold of 30% and the study by Spano and colleagues included only 4.5% of the cycles with a DFI above the proposed threshold of 40%. A recent meta-analysis by Evenson and Wixon of these two studies stated that couples with no known infertility problems were 7.0 time more likely to achieve a pregnancy/delivery via in vivo fertilization if the DFI <30 [37]. As a general trend in these studies, lower pregnancy rates are associated with increasing % DFI, but a high % DFI does not preclude pregnancy. Although evidence suggests that sperm DNA damage is associated with male infertility, more large scale studies are needed before suggested threshold levels are to be validated.

There is also evidence that sperm DNA integrity may have a high predictive value for in vivo fertilization when intrauterine insemination (IUI) is performed. In multiple studies, sperm DNA damage has been shown to be significantly higher in couples who failed to obtain a pregnancy after IUI [16, 17, 33, 105, 107]. One study found that no samples with >12% DNA fragmentation as measured by TUNEL resulted in pregnancy using IUI [33]. In the largest series to date involving 387 IUI cycles the odds ratio for biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and delivery in IUI were all significantly lower in patients with a DFI >30% [16]. Additionally, infertile couples using IUI were 7.3 times more likely to achieve pregnancy delivery if the DFI was <30% in a metanalysis by [37]. Given these findings, measures of sperm DNA integrity appear to have a high predictive value for IUI outcomes.

In vitro fertilization

In the last five years, there has been an increase in number of clinical studies evaluating the relationship between sperm DNA integrity and reproductive outcomes of IVF and IVF with ICSI. While tests of sperm DNA integrity appear to have high predictive value for outcomes of in vivo fertilization, the relationship with IVF and ICSI are more controversial. Fertilization, embryo quality, and pregnancy rates are all important reproductive parameters that could potentially be affected by sperm DNA damage and thus are often examined in the literature. Several clinical studies have found no significant correlation between sperm DNA damage and fertilization rates in vitro [46, 59, 60, 75, 76, 89, 119, 121, 123, 131]. In a recent meta-analysis by Li and colleagues found no relationship between sperm DNA damage and fertilization rates during IVF or ICSI using either SCSA or TUNEL assays [79]. This is not completely unexpected since the embryonic genome is not expressed until the four to eight-cell stage and thus fertilization may not be dependent on sperm DNA integrity [15]. Despite this, other studies have found a negative correlation between sperm DNA damage and fertilization rates [12, 63, 80, 98]. Additionally, there has been no consistent relationship between sperm DNA damage and embryo quality during IVF cycles. Several studies did not identify any adverse effects of sperm DNA damage on embryo quality [12, 63, 75, 80, 121], while others reported a negative correlation [89, 108, 123, 131].

Perhaps the most important reproductive parameter to consider in relation to sperm DNA damage is pregnancy rates. Unfortunately, there is also controversy as to the influence of sperm DNA damage on pregnancy rates with IVF or ICSI. Early studies reported a significant reduction of pregnancy rates following IVF or ICSI for patients with increased levels of sperm DNA damage [12, 59, 60, 75, 76, 121, 123]. It was reported in multiple studies that no clinical pregnancy could be obtained after IVF or ICSI when the DFI as measured by the SCSA was >27% [75, 76]. Additionally, Benchaib and coworkers reported that DNA fragmentation as measured by TUNEL was significantly lower when a pregnancy was obtained using ICSI and that no pregnancy was obtained when DNA fragmentation was >20% [12]. Although in a more recent study there was no significant differences in pregnancy rates after IVF or ICSI between patients with high and low levels of DNA fragmentation using a TUNEL value of 15% as a cutoff [13]. Several studies have failed to confirm these earlier findings by demonstrating no significant differences in pregnancy rates following IVF or ICSI between patients with high and low levels of sperm DNA damage [13, 16, 17, 46, 63, 108, 131]. Successful pregnancies have also been obtained using IVF or ICSI cycles despite high levels of sperm chromatin damage (DFI > 27%) [16, 17, 21, 46]. A recent study found no significant differences in IVF and ICSI pregnancy outcomes between low and high DFI groups. However, when there were high levels of sperm DNA damage (DFI > 30%), they reported pregnancy rates with ICSI were significantly better than IVF [16]. Given that couples undergoing conventional IVF in this study did not also undergo ICSI, making comparisons between these two different groups precludes definitive conclusions. With this increasing number of studies in recent years, meta-analyses have been published evaluating effects of sperm DNA damage on reproductive outcomes. In the meta-analysis by Evenson and Wixon, infertile couples were approximately 2.0 times more likely to become pregnant after routine IVF if their DFI was <30%. For ICSI and/or routine IVF, the results showed a non-significant trend where infertile couples were 1.6 times more likely to achieve pregnancy if the DFI was <30% [37]. In contrast, another meta-analysis showed no significant effects of sperm DNA damage on the clinical pregnancy rate after IVF or ICSI when using the SCSA. However, when using the TUNEL assay, clinical pregnancy rates following IVF, but not ICSI, decreased significantly for patients with a high degree of sperm DNA damage [79]. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated a small but statistically significant association between sperm DNA integrity test results and pregnancy in IVF and ICSI cycles, yet questioned its clinical utility [23].

Despite the growing body of literature on these issues, there continues to be a degree of uncertainty. It has been proposed that sperm DNA integrity becomes particularly relevant when fertilization occurs in a more natural way, such as in normal circumstances or conventional IVF [46]. Subsequently, the SCSA and other tests of sperm DNA integrity seem to lose their predictive power in respect to reproductive outcomes from natural conception and IUI to IVF to ICSI [115]. We speculate that men with very high levels of sperm DNA damage will have a lower chance of producing a pregnancy. However, based on the available evidence, there is currently no established absolute upper threshold that would preclude a successful pregnancy.

It has been proposed that sperm DNA damage is promutagenic and can give rise to mutations after fertilization as oocytes attempts to repair the DNA before initiation of the first cleavage division [3]. Any mutations occurring at this point may be fixed in the germ line and may be responsible for induction of pathology [3]. Children conceived by ICSI have been found to have an increased incidence of genetic aberrations [14]. Whether this is a treatment or patient population association is currently unknown. Additionally, epigenetic abnormalities such as rare human imprinting disorders, Angelman’s syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, have been associated with IVF and ICSI [26, 31, 50, 53, 81]. An increased risk of birth defects has been associated with IVF and ICSI when compared to natural conception [57, 58, 96], but this has not been observed by several other studies [66, 126]. While the consequences of using sperm with DNA damage in assisted reproductive technologies are far from being fully understood, these current reports raise concern and warrant further investigation into this subject.

Evolving treatment strategies: role of antioxidants

Because ROS have been associated with sperm DNA damage, investigators have studied possible protective roles of antioxidants in preventing or treating sperm DNA damage. Several previous studies have reported improved sperm DNA integrity with use of oral antioxidants [24, 49, 54, 67, 71, 117]. However, few of these studies report on how these improvements affect pregnancy rates. In a recent study 38 men with an elevated percentage of DNA fragmented sperm were treated with antioxidants, vitamin C and vitamin E, for 2 months after one failed ICSI attempt. A second ICSI cycle was then performed which demonstrated a marked improvement of clinical pregnancy rates (48.2% vs. 6.9%) when compared with pretreatment ICSI outcomes [54], although there was no placebo control for comparison. Additionally, 76% of these cases led to a decrease in the percentage of DNA fragmented sperm after treatment with antioxidants. However, another study reported that even without treatment, 37% of patients with an abnormal result on first SCSA (DFI >30%) were subsequently found to have normal result (DFI < 30%) on a second SCSA test [34]. Larger scale, prospective, randomized studies will be necessary before reaching any definitive conclusions on the clinical usefulness of antioxidants in treatment of male infertility.

Summary

Sperm chromatin has a highly specialized and compact structure that is essential for protection and subsequent transmission of the paternal genome. A variety of etiologies have been associated with increased levels of sperm DNA damage, but the exact pathophysiologic mechanisms by which sperm DNA damage occurs are not completely understood. A large number of tests are available to assess different aspects of sperm DNA integrity, but there remains no consensus on the optimal technique or appropriate clinical cut-off levels. High levels of sperm DNA damage are found in infertile men and have a negative correlation with reproductive outcomes by natural conception or IUI. However, the impact of sperm DNA damage on IVF and ICSI reproductive outcomes remain more controversial. Our understanding of the potential consequences on the offspring of using DNA damaged sperm in ICSI remain very basic and warrants further investigation. While the testing of sperm DNA integrity has the potential for great impact on the field of male infertility, additional studies and large scale trials are needed to further elucidate and define the mechanisms of sperm DNA damage and their clinical significance in reproductive outcomes.

Footnotes

Capsule

Integrity of sperm DNA is essential for normal fertilization, embryo development and reproduction. Numerous factors can impact sperm chromatin structure and currently multiple diagnostic test are available to ascertain sperm DNA integrity.

References

1. Agarwal A, Allamaneni SS. Sperm DNA damage assessment: a test whose time has come. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:850–853. [PubMed]
2. Aitken RJ, Bowie H, Buckingham D, Harkiss D, Richardson DW, West KM. Sperm penetration into a hyaluronic acid polymer as a means of monitoring functional competence. J Androl. 1992;13:44–54. [PubMed]
3. Aitken RJ, Krausz C. Oxidative stress, DNA damage and the Y chromosome. Reproduction. 2001;122:497–506. [PubMed]
4. Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martinez L, Ramirez JP, Vergara F, Gaforio JJ. Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2082–2088. [PubMed]
5. Alvarez JG, Sharma RK, Ollero M, Saleh RA, Lopez MC, Thomas AJ, Jr, et al. Increased DNA damage in sperm from leukocytospermic semen samples as determined by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:319–329. [PubMed]
6. Amann RP. Can the fertility potential of a seminal sample be predicted accurately? J Androl. 1989;10:89–98. [PubMed]
7. Aravindan GR, Bjordahl J, Jost LK, Evenson DP. Susceptibility of human sperm to in situ DNA denaturation is strongly correlated with DNA strand breaks identified by single-cell electrophoresis. Exp Cell Res. 1997;236:231–237. [PubMed]
8. Arnon J, Meirow D, Lewis-Roness H, Ornoy A. Genetic and teratogenic effects of cancer treatments on gametes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:394–403. [PubMed]
9. Auger J, Mesbah M, Huber C, Dadoune JP. Aniline blue staining as a marker of sperm chromatin defects associated with different semen characteristics discriminates between proven fertile and suspected infertile men. Int J Androl. 1990;13:452–462. [PubMed]
10. Barroso G, Morshedi M, Oehninger S. Analysis of DNA fragmentation, plasma membrane translocation of phosphatidylserine and oxidative stress in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1338–1344. [PubMed]
11. Bench GS, Friz AM, Corzett MH, Morse DH, Balhorn R. DNA and total protamine masses in individual sperm from fertile mammalian subjects. Cytometry. 1996;23:263–271. [PubMed]
12. Benchaib M, Braun V, Lornage J, Hadj S, Salle B, Lejeune H, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation decreases the pregnancy rate in an assisted reproductive technique. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1023–1028. [PubMed]
13. Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, Lejeune H, Salle B, Francois Guerin J. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:93–100. [PubMed]
14. Bonduelle M, Aytoz A, Assche E, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Steirteghem A. Incidence of chromosomal aberrations in children born after assisted reproduction through intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:781–782. [PubMed]
15. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332:459–461. [PubMed]
16. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erenpreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:174–179. [PubMed]
17. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Spano M, Jepson K, Bungum L, Giwercman A. The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1401–1408. [PubMed]
18. Carrell DT, Liu L. Altered protamine 2 expression is uncommon in donors of known fertility, but common among men with poor fertilizing capacity, and may reflect other abnormalities of spermiogenesis. J Androl. 2001;22:604–610. [PubMed]
19. Centola G, Ginsburg K. Evaluation and treatment of the infertile male. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
20. Chatterjee R, Haines GA, Perera DM, Goldstone A, Morris ID. Testicular and sperm DNA damage after treatment with fludarabine for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:762–766. [PubMed]
21. Check JH, Graziano V, Cohen R, Krotec J, Check ML. Effect of an abnormal sperm chromatin structural assay (SCSA) on pregnancy outcome following (IVF) with ICSI in previous IVF failures. Arch Androl. 2005;51:121–124. [PubMed]
22. Chohan KR, Griffin JT, Lafromboise M, Jonge CJ, Carrell DT. Comparison of chromatin assays for DNA fragmentation evaluation in human sperm. J Androl. 2006;27:53–59. [PubMed]
23. Collins JA, Barnhart KT, Schlegel PN. Do sperm DNA integrity test predict pregnancy with in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril. 2008;89:823–831. [PubMed]
24. Comhaire FH, Christophe AB, Zalata AA, Dhooge WS, Mahmoud AM, Depuydt CE. The effects of combined conventional treatment, oral antioxidants and essential fatty acids on sperm biology in subfertile men. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2000;63:159–165. [PubMed]
25. Corzett M, Mazrimas J, Balhorn R. Protamine 1: protamine 2 stoichiometry in the sperm of eutherian mammals. Mol Reprod Dev. 2002;61:519–527. [PubMed]
26. Cox GF, Burger J, Lip V, Mau UA, Sperling K, Wu BL, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;71:162–164. [PubMed]
27. Dadoune JP. The nuclear status of human sperm cells. Micron. 1995;26:323–345. [PubMed]
28. Dadoune JP, Mayaux MJ, Guihard-Moscato ML. Correlation between defects in chromatin condensation of human spermatozoa stained by aniline blue and semen characteristics. Andrologia. 1988;20:211–217. [PubMed]
29. 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;90:411–428. [PubMed]
30. Lamirande E, Gagnon C. The dark and bright sides of reactive oxygen species on sperm function. In: Gagnon C, editor. The male gamete: from basic science to clinical applications. IL: Cache River Press; 1999. pp. 455–467.
31. DeBaun MR, Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:156–160. [PubMed]
32. Donnelly ET, Steele EK, McClure N, Lewis SE. Assessment of DNA integrity and morphology of ejaculated spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men before and after cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1191–1199. [PubMed]
33. Duran EH, Morshedi M, Taylor S, Oehninger S. Sperm DNA quality predicts intrauterine insemination outcome: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3122–3128. [PubMed]
34. Erenpreiss J, Bungum M, Spano M, Elzanaty S, Orbidans J, Giwercman A. Intra-individual variation in sperm chromatin structure assay parameters in men from infertile couples: clinical implications. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2061–2064. [PubMed]
35. Erenpreiss J, Hlevicka S, Zalkalns J, Erenpreisa J. Effect of leukocytospermia on sperm DNA integrity: a negative effect in abnormal semen samples. J Androl. 2002;23:717–723. [PubMed]
36. 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;19:2277–2282. [PubMed]
37. Evenson D, Wixon R. Meta-analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation using the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:466–472. [PubMed]
38. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980;210:1131–1133. [PubMed]
39. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Baer RK, Turner TW, Schrader SM. Individuality of DNA denaturation patterns in human sperm as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Toxicol. 1991;5:115–125. [PubMed]
40. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1039–1049. [PubMed]
41. 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. J Androl. 2002;23:25–43. [PubMed]
42. Fernandez JL, Muriel L, Goyanes V, Segrelles E, Gosalvez J, Enciso M, et al. Simple determination of human sperm DNA fragmentation with an improved sperm chromatin dispersion test. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:833–842. [PubMed]
43. Fischer MA, Willis J, Zini A. Human sperm DNA integrity: correlation with sperm cytoplasmic droplets. Urology. 2003;61:207–211. [PubMed]
44. Fuentes-Mascorro G, Serrano H, Rosado A. Sperm chromatin. Arch Androl. 2000;45:215–225. [PubMed]
45. Gandini L, Lombardo F, Paoli D, Caponecchia L, Familiari G, Verlengia C, et al. Study of apoptotic DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:830–839. [PubMed]
46. Gandini L, Lombardo F, Paoli D, Caruso F, Eleuteri P, Leter G, et al. Full-term pregnancies achieved with ICSI despite high levels of sperm chromatin damage. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1409–1417. [PubMed]
47. Gatewood JM, Cook GR, Balhorn R, Bradbury EM, Schmid CW. Sequence-specific packaging of DNA in human sperm chromatin. Science. 1987;236:962–964. [PubMed]
48. Genesca A, Caballin MR, Miro R, Benet J, Germa JR, Egozcue J. Repair of human sperm chromosome aberrations in the hamster egg. Hum Genet. 1992;89:181–186. [PubMed]
49. Geva E, Lessing JB, Lerner-Geva L, Amit A. Free radicals, antioxidants and human spermatozoa: clinical implications. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1422–1424. [PubMed]
50. Gicquel C, Gaston V, Mandelbaum J, Siffroi JP, Flahault A, Bouc Y. In vitro fertilization may increase the risk of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome related to the abnormal imprinting of the KCN1OT gene. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:1338–1341. [PubMed]
51. Gomez E, Buckingham DW, Brindle J, Lanzafame F, Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Development of an image analysis system to monitor the retention of residual cytoplasm by human spermatozoa: correlation with biochemical markers of the cytoplasmic space, oxidative stress, and sperm function. J Androl. 1996;17:276–287. [PubMed]
52. Gorczyca W, Gong J, Darzynkiewicz Z. Detection of DNA strand breaks in individual apoptotic cells by the in situ terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and nick translation assays. Cancer Res. 1993;53:1945–1951. [PubMed]
53. Gosden R, Trasler J, Lucifero D, Faddy M. Rare congenital disorders, imprinted genes, and assisted reproductive technology. Lancet. 2003;361:1975–1977. [PubMed]
54. Greco E, Romano S, Iacobelli M, Ferrero S, Baroni E, Minasi MG, et al. ICSI in cases of sperm DNA damage: beneficial effect of oral antioxidant treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2590–2594. [PubMed]
55. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, Coutifaris C, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1388–1393. [PubMed]
56. Haines G, Marples B, Daniel P, Morris I. DNA damage in human and mouse spermatozoa after in vitro-irradiation assessed by the comet assay. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1998;444:79–91. [PubMed]
57. Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects–a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:328–338. [PubMed]
58. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C, Webb S. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:725–730. [PubMed]
59. Henkel R, Hajimohammad M, Stalf T, Hoogendijk C, Mehnert C, Menkveld R, et al. Influence of deoxyribonucleic acid damage on fertilization and pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:965–972. [PubMed]
60. Henkel R, Kierspel E, Hajimohammad M, Stalf T, Hoogendijk C, Mehnert C, et al. DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa and assisted reproduction technology. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:477–484. [PubMed]
61. Hikim AP, Lue Y, Yamamoto CM, Vera Y, Rodriguez S, Yen PH, et al. Key apoptotic pathways for heat-induced programmed germ cell death in the testis. Endocrinology. 2003;144:3167–3175. [PubMed]
62. Host E, Lindenberg S, Kahn JA, Christensen F. DNA strand breaks in human sperm cells: a comparison between men with normal and oligozoospermic sperm samples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78:336–339. [PubMed]
63. Huang CC, Lin DP, Tsao HM, Cheng TC, Liu CH, Lee MS. Sperm DNA fragmentation negatively correlates with velocity and fertilization rates but might not affect pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:130–140. [PubMed]
64. Hughes CM, Lewis SE, 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;2:613–619. [PubMed]
65. Irvine DS, Twigg JP, Gordon EL, Fulton N, Milne PA, Aitken RJ. DNA integrity in human spermatozoa: relationships with semen quality. J Androl. 2000;21:33–44. [PubMed]
66. Isaksson R, Gissler M, Tiitinen A. Obstetric outcome among women with unexplained infertility after IVF: a matched case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1755–1761. [PubMed]
67. Keskes-Ammar L, Feki-Chakroun N, Rebai T, Sahnoun Z, Ghozzi H, Hammami S, et al. Sperm oxidative stress and the effect of an oral vitamin E and selenium supplement on semen quality in infertile men. Arch Androl. 2003;49:83–94. [PubMed]
68. Kierszenbaum AL. Transition nuclear proteins during spermiogenesis: unrepaired DNA breaks not allowed. Mol Reprod Dev. 2001;58:357–358. [PubMed]
69. Klaude M, Eriksson S, Nygren J, Ahnstrom G. The comet assay: mechanisms and technical considerations. Mutat Res. 1996;363:89–96. [PubMed]
70. Kobayashi H, Larson K, Sharma RK, Nelson DR, Evenson DP, Toma H, et al. DNA damage in patients with untreated cancer as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:469–475. [PubMed]
71. Kodama H, Yamaguchi R, Fukuda J, Kasai H, Tanaka T. Increased oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in the spermatozoa of infertile male patients. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:519–524. [PubMed]
72. Kosower NS, Katayose H, Yanagimachi R. Thiol-disulfide status and acridine orange fluorescence of mammalian sperm nuclei. J Androl. 1992;13:342–348. [PubMed]
73. Labbe C, Martoriati A, Devaux A, Maisse G. Effect of sperm cryopreservation on sperm DNA stability and progeny development in rainbow trout. Mol Reprod Dev. 2001;60:397–404. [PubMed]
74. Laberge RM, Boissonneault G. On the nature and origin of DNA strand breaks in elongating spermatids. Biol Reprod. 2005;73:289–296. [PubMed]
75. Larson-Cook KL, Brannian JD, Hansen KA, Kasperson KM, Aamold ET, Evenson DP. Relationship between the outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques and sperm DNA fragmentation as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:895–902. [PubMed]
76. Larson KL, DeJonge CJ, Barnes AM, Jost LK, Evenson DP. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters as predictors of failed pregnancy following assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1717–1722. [PubMed]
77. Lee CH, Cho YH. Aspects of mammalian spermatogenesis: electrophoretical analysis of protamines in mammalian species. Mol Cells. 1999;9:556–559. [PubMed]
78. Lee J, Richburg JH, Younkin SC, Boekelheide K. The Fas system is a key regulator of germ cell apoptosis in the testis. Endocrinology. 1997;138:2081–2088. [PubMed]
79. Li Z, Wang L, Cai J, Huang H. Correlation of sperm DNA damage with IVF and ICSI outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23:367–376. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Lopes S, Sun JG, Jurisicova A, Meriano J, Casper RF. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation is increased in poor-quality semen samples and correlates with failed fertilization in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:528–532. [PubMed]
81. Maher ER, Brueton LA, Bowdin SC, Luharia A, Cooper W, Cole TR, et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART) J Med Genet. 2003;40:62–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82. Mallidis C, Howard EJ, Baker HW. Variation of semen quality in normal men. Int J Androl. 1991;14:99–107. [PubMed]
83. Marcon L, Boissonneault G. Transient DNA strand breaks during mouse and human spermiogenesis new insights in stage specificity and link to chromatin remodeling. Biol Reprod. 2004;70:910–918. [PubMed]
84. McGhee JD, Felsenfeld G, Eisenberg H. Nucleosome structure and conformational changes. Biophys J. 1980;32:261–270. [PubMed]
85. McPherson S, Longo FJ. Chromatin structure-function alterations during mammalian spermatogenesis: DNA nicking and repair in elongating spermatids. Eur J Histochem. 1993;37:109–128. [PubMed]
86. McVicar CM, McClure N, Williamson K, Dalzell LH, Lewis SE. Incidence of Fas positivity and deoxyribonucleic acid double-stranded breaks in human ejaculated sperm. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(Suppl 1):767–774. [PubMed]
87. Mello ML. Induced metachromasia in bull spermatozoa. Histochemistry. 1982;74:387–392. [PubMed]
88. Morris ID. Sperm DNA damage and cancer treatment. Int J Androl. 2002;25:255–261. [PubMed]
89. Morris ID, Ilott S, Dixon L, Brison DR. The spectrum of DNA damage in human sperm assessed by single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay) and its relationship to fertilization and embryo development. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:990–998. [PubMed]
90. Mosher WD, Pratt WF. Fecundity and infertility in the United States: incidence and trends. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:192–193. [PubMed]
91. Muratori M, Marchiani S, Maggi M, Forti G, Baldi E. Origin and biological significance of DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Front Biosci. 2006;11:1491–1499. [PubMed]
92. Muratori M, Piomboni P, Baldi E, Filimberti E, Pecchioli P, Moretti E, et al. Functional and ultrastructural features of DNA-fragmented human sperm. J Androl. 2000;21:903–912. [PubMed]
93. Muriel L, Garrido N, Fernandez JL, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Santos MJ, et al. Value of the sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation level, as measured by the sperm chromatin dispersion test, in the outcome of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:371–383. [PubMed]
94. Oliva R. Protamines and male infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:417–435. [PubMed]
95. Ollero M, Gil-Guzman E, Lopez MC, Sharma RK, Agarwal A, Larson K, et al. Characterization of subsets of human spermatozoa at different stages of maturation: implications in the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1912–1921. [PubMed]
96. Olson CK, Keppler-Noreuil KM, Romitti PA, Budelier WT, Ryan G, Sparks AE, et al. In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1308–1315. [PubMed]
97. Paul C, Povey JE, Lawrence NJ, Selfridge J, Melton DW, Sanders PTK. Delection of genes implicated in protecting the integrity of male germ cells has differential effects on the incidence of DNA breaks and germ cell loss. PLoS ONE. 2007;10:1–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK. Redefining the relationship between sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay and outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:356–364. [PubMed]
99. Potts RJ, Newbury CJ, Smith G, Notarianni LJ, Jefferies TM. Sperm chromatin damage associated with male smoking. Mutat Res. 1999;423:103–111. [PubMed]
100. Rigler R, Killander D, Bolund L, Ringertz NR. Cytochemical characterization of deoxyribonucleoprotein in individual cell nuclei. Techniques for obtaining heat denaturation curves with the aid of acridine orange microfluorimetry and ultraviolet microspectrophotometry. Exp Cell Res. 1969;55:215–224. [PubMed]
101. Rodriguez I, Ody C, Araki K, Garcia I, Vassalli P. An early and massive wave of germinal cell apoptosis is required for the development of functional spermatogenesis. Embo J. 1997;16:2262–2270. [PubMed]
102. Sailer BL, Jost LK, Evenson DP. Mammalian sperm DNA susceptibility to in situ denaturation associated with the presence of DNA strand breaks as measured by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase assay. J Androl. 1995;16:80–87. [PubMed]
103. Sakkas D, Mariethoz E, Manicardi G, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, Bianchi U. Origin of DNA damage in ejaculated human spermatozoa. Rev Reprod. 1999;4:31–37. [PubMed]
104. Sakkas D, Seli E, Bizzaro D, Tarozzi N, Manicardi GC. Abnormal spermatozoa in the ejaculate: abortive apoptosis and faulty nuclear remodelling during spermatogenesis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:428–432. [PubMed]
105. Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Nada EA, El-Tonsy MH, Sharma RK, Meyer A, et al. Negative effects of increased sperm DNA damage in relation to seminal oxidative stress in men with idiopathic and male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(Suppl 3):1597–1605. [PubMed]
106. Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Nelson DR, Nada EA, El-Tonsy MH, Alvarez JG, et al. Increased sperm nuclear DNA damage in normozoospermic infertile men: a prospective study. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:313–318. [PubMed]
107. Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Sharma RK, Said TM, Sikka SC, Thomas AJ., Jr Evaluation of nuclear DNA damage in spermatozoa from infertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1431–1436. [PubMed]
108. Seli E, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Moffatt O, Sakkas D. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:378–383. [PubMed]
109. Seli E, Sakkas D. Spermatozoal nuclear determinants of reproductive outcome: implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:337–349. [PubMed]
110. Sergerie M, Laforest G, Boulanger K, Bissonnette F, Bleau G. Longitudinal study of sperm DNA fragmentation as measured by terminal uridine nick end-labelling assay. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1921–1927. [PubMed]
111. Sergerie M, Laforest G, Bujan L, Bissonnette F, Bleau G. Sperm DNA fragmentation: threshold value in male fertility. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3446–3451. [PubMed]
112. Singh NP, Stephens RE. X-ray induced DNA double-strand breaks in human sperm. Mutagenesis. 1998;13:75–79. [PubMed]
113. Sinha Hikim AP, Swerdloff RS. Hormonal and genetic control of germ cell apoptosis in the testis. Rev Reprod. 1999;4:38–47. [PubMed]
114. Spano M, Bonde JP, Hjollund HI, Kolstad HA, Cordelli E, Leter G. Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:43–50. [PubMed]
115. Spano M, Seli E, Bizzaro D, Manicardi GC, Sakkas D. The significance of sperm nuclear DNA strand breaks on reproductive outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:255–260. [PubMed]
116. Steger K, Pauls K, Klonisch T, Franke FE, Bergmann M. Expression of protamine-1 and -2 mRNA during human spermiogenesis. Mol Hum Reprod. 2000;6:219–225. [PubMed]
117. Suleiman SA, Ali ME, Zaki ZM, el-Malik EM, Nasr MA. Lipid peroxidation and human sperm motility: protective role of vitamin E. J Androl. 1996;17:530–537. [PubMed]
118. 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. [PubMed]
119. Tesarik J, Mendoza C, Greco E. Paternal effects acting during the first cell cycle of human preimplantation development after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:184–189. [PubMed]
120. Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallec A, Ferial ML, Ducot B, Lansac J, et al. Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1, 850, 000) of three French regions (1988–1989) Hum Reprod. 1991;6:811–816. [PubMed]
121. Tomlinson MJ, Moffatt O, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Afnan M, Sakkas D. Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: implications for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2160–2165. [PubMed]
122. Twigg J, Irvine DS, Houston P, Fulton N, Michael L, Aitken RJ. Iatrogenic DNA damage induced in human spermatozoa during sperm preparation: protective significance of seminal plasma. Mol Hum Reprod. 1998;4:439–445. [PubMed]
123. Virro MR, Larson-Cook KL, Evenson DP. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters are related to fertilization, blastocyst development, and ongoing pregnancy in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1289–1295. [PubMed]
124. Ward WS, Coffey DS. DNA packaging and organization in mammalian spermatozoa: comparison with somatic cells. Biol Reprod. 1991;44:569–574. [PubMed]
125. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
126. Zadori J, Kozinszky Z, Orvos H, Katona M, Kaali SG, Pal A. The incidence of major birth defects following in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:131–132. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
127. Zini A, Bielecki R, Phang D, Zenzes MT. Correlations between two markers of sperm DNA integrity, DNA denaturation and DNA fragmentation, in fertile and infertile men. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:674–677. [PubMed]
128. Zini A, Lamirande E, Gagnon C. Reactive oxygen species in semen of infertile patients: levels of superoxide dismutase- and catalase-like activities in seminal plasma and spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 1993;16:183–188. [PubMed]
129. Zini A, Fischer MA, Sharir S, Shayegan B, Phang D, Jarvi K. Prevalence of abnormal sperm DNA denaturation in fertile and infertile men. Urology. 2002;60:1069–1072. [PubMed]
130. Zini A, Kamal K, Phang D, Willis J, Jarvi K. Biologic variability of sperm DNA denaturation in infertile men. Urology. 2001;58:258–261. [PubMed]
131. Zini A, Meriano J, Kader K, Jarvi K, Laskin CA, Cadesky K. Potential adverse effect of sperm DNA damage on embryo quality after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3476–3480. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics are provided here courtesy of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC