Cinthia M Feijó1, Sandro C Esteves2. 1. ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Referral Center for Male Reproduction, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Referral Center for Male Reproduction, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: s.esteves@androfert.com.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test and the terminal uridine nick-end labeling (TUNEL) assay for assessment of sperm DNA damage. DESIGN: Prospective comparative experimental study. SETTING: Andrology laboratory. PATIENT(S): Twenty subfertile men with unexplained infertility. INTERVENTION(S): Sperm DNA damage was determined in the same semen samples using the TUNEL assay with fluorescence microscopy and the SCD test with bright-field microscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Correlation coefficient and receiver operating characteristic analysis outcomes. The TUNEL assay was used as the reference standard to identify optimal cutoff points for assessing DNA damage by SCD. RESULT(S): The SCD test detected a significantly higher proportion of sperm with damaged DNA (20.6% ± 14.0%) than the TUNEL assay (11.5% ± 7.3%). Spearman's rank correlation showed that the methods were not comparable (r = 0.29). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that 15% was the best SCD cutoff point to classify patients within the same levels of DNA fragmentation, normal or abnormal, as determined by the TUNEL assay, with an accuracy of 69%. CONCLUSION(S): The SCD test is more sensitive than the TUNEL assay for the assessment of DNA damage in men with unexplained infertility. Although the methods are poorly correlated, SCD may discriminate men with normal and abnormal sperm DNA damage with moderate accuracy when compared with TUNEL. It is important to distinguish between the methods because they differently evaluate sperm DNA damage.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test and the terminal uridine nick-end labeling (TUNEL) assay for assessment of sperm DNA damage. DESIGN: Prospective comparative experimental study. SETTING: Andrology laboratory. PATIENT(S): Twenty subfertile men with unexplained infertility. INTERVENTION(S): Sperm DNA damage was determined in the same semen samples using the TUNEL assay with fluorescence microscopy and the SCD test with bright-field microscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Correlation coefficient and receiver operating characteristic analysis outcomes. The TUNEL assay was used as the reference standard to identify optimal cutoff points for assessing DNA damage by SCD. RESULT(S): The SCD test detected a significantly higher proportion of sperm with damaged DNA (20.6% ± 14.0%) than the TUNEL assay (11.5% ± 7.3%). Spearman's rank correlation showed that the methods were not comparable (r = 0.29). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that 15% was the best SCD cutoff point to classify patients within the same levels of DNA fragmentation, normal or abnormal, as determined by the TUNEL assay, with an accuracy of 69%. CONCLUSION(S): The SCD test is more sensitive than the TUNEL assay for the assessment of DNA damage in men with unexplained infertility. Although the methods are poorly correlated, SCD may discriminate men with normal and abnormal sperm DNA damage with moderate accuracy when compared with TUNEL. It is important to distinguish between the methods because they differently evaluate sperm DNA damage.
Authors: U Punjabi; H Van Mulders; I Goovaerts; K Peeters; E Roelant; D De Neubourg Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Sandro C Esteves; Armand Zini; Robert Matthew Coward; Donald P Evenson; Jaime Gosálvez; Sheena E M Lewis; Rakesh Sharma; Peter Humaidan Journal: Andrologia Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.775
Authors: Atef Fathi; Omar Mohamed; Osama Mahmoud; Gamal A Alsagheer; A M Reyad; Ahmed Abolyosr; Mohamed Sayed Abdel-Kader; Mohammed Saber-Khalaf Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2021-02-14