| Literature DB >> 24520319 |
Céline Faure1, Charlotte Dupont2, Martin A Baraibar3, Romain Ladouce3, Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin4, Jean Philippe Wolf5, Rachel Lévy1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of overweight among men of reproductive-age may affect fertility. Abdominal fat, more than body mass index, is an indicator of higher metabolic risk, which seems to be involved in decreasing sperm quality. This study aims to assess the relationship between abdominal fat and sperm DNA fragmentation and the effect of abdominal fat loss, among 6 men in subfertile couples.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24520319 PMCID: PMC3919721 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Design of the study.
Anthropometric parameters, semen characteristics, seminal antioxidant markers, metabolic and hormonal profiles and pregnancy outcome at baseline and after dietary advices.
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | Patient 6 | Wilcoxon test | |||||||
| baseline | after diet | baseline | after diet | baseline | after diet | baseline | after diet | baseline | after diet | baseline | after diet | signification (alpha s) | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| age (years) | 30 | 29 | 33 | 28 | 27 | 44 | |||||||
| height (m) | 1.86 | 1.82 | 1.89 | 1.73 | 1.88 | 1.89 | |||||||
| weight (kg) | 87.5 | 86.2 | 93.7 | 87.7 | 160.6 | 146.7 | 79.5 | 78.4 | 96.2 | 94.7 | 111.6 | 109 | 0.0139* |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.3 | 24.9 | 28.3 | 26.5 | 44.9 | 41.1 | 26.6 | 26.2 | 27.2 | 26.8 | 31.2 | 30.7 | 0.0139* |
| waist circunference (cm) | 103 | 90 | 90 | 89 | 142 | 121 | 83 | 80 | 96 | 94 | 125 | 114 | 0.0139* |
| intra-abdominal fat | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 26 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 13 | 9 | 0.0139* |
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| 28.4 | 16.9 | 76.2 | 31.9 | 35.6 | 87 | 74 | 199.6 | 29 | 176.6 | 21.9 | 32 | 0.1244 |
| progressive sperm motility (%) | 40 | 40 | 30 | 30 | 8 | 10 | 40 | 25 | 25 | 45 | 8 | 35 | 0.1367 |
| normal spermatozoa (%) | 31 | 27 | 14 | 15 | 11 | 21 | 26 | 19 | 7 | 14 | 11 | 16 | 0.2068 |
| sperm fragmentation (%) | 31 | 9.5 | 66 | 26.3 | 25 | 1.7 | 43 | 24 | 47 | 18 | 35 | 25.4 | 0.0139* |
|
| |||||||||||||
| superoxide dismutase protein 2 (pg/ml) | 1191.5 | 2741.5 | 809 | 3621.5 | 1819 | 3311.5 | 4191.5 | >4399 | 754 | 3499 | 2939 | 4484 | 0.0139* |
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| 0.9 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.3766 |
| triglycerides (g/l) | 0.82 | 0.7 | 0.89 | 0.59 | 1.87 | 1.39 | 1.02 | 0.7 | 1.21 | 1.1 | 3.07 | 2.19 | 0.0139* |
| total cholesterol (g/l) | 2.01 | 1.72 | 2.2 | 1.64 | 1.75 | 1.62 | 2.01 | 1.69 | 1.86 | 1.64 | 3.17 | 2.63 | 0.0139* |
| HDL (g/l) | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.5 | 0.0865 |
| LDL (g/l) | 1.4 | 1.21 | 1.51 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 1.35 | 1.17 | 1.11 | 1.52 | 2.11 | 1.52 | 0.1244 |
| HDL/LDL ratio | 0.33 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.33 | |
| FSH (UI/l) | 4.6 | 3.2 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 45 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 0.0374* |
| LH (UI/l) | 5.3 | 2.7 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 3 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 0.0865 |
| oestradiol (pg/ml) | 51.7 | 36 | 37.4 | 22 | 34.6 | 32.8 | 32.8 | 26 | 30.3 | 28 | 26.7 | 18.1 | |
| testosterone (ng/ml) | 2.31 | 5.2 | 1.81 | 5.52 | 1.83 | 2.78 | 5.07 | 5.82 | 2.07 | 3.8 | 1.53 | 2.06 | |
| testo/oestra ratio | 44.6 | 144.4 | 48.4 | 250.9 | 52.9 | 87.76 | 154.6 | 223.8 | 68.3 | 135.7 | 57.3 | 113.8 | 0.0139* |
|
| 1 stim 1 IUI | 1 IUI | 1 stim | 1 IUI | 2 stim 1 IUI | 1 IUI | 1 stim 3 IUI | 1 IUI | 2 stim | None | 3 IUI | 1 IUI | |
|
| No pregnancy | Live birth | No pregnancy | Live birth | No pregnancy | Live birth | No pregnancy | Live birth | No pregnancy | Live birth | No pregnancy | Live birth | |
Figure 2Oxidized damaged proteins before (Basal Line) and after treatment (After Diet).
SDS-PAGE (4–20%) pattern of total proteins post-stained with ProteinGOLDTM (A), or carbonylated proteins pre-labeled with C5Hz (B). Semiquantification of carbonylated proteins were performed by densitometric analysis, expressed as relative values and shown as mean±S.D (n = 5) and analyzed using Student's t-test; * P = 0.06 (C).
Delivery and neonatal characteristics.
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | Patient 6 | |
| amenorrhea weeks | 39.5 | 40 | 40 | 37 | 38 | 41 |
| baby weight (kg) | 3230 | 3070 | 3580 | 2750 | 3300 | 3750 |
| size (cm) | 47 | 49 | 53 | 45 | 47 | 50 |
| APGAR | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| sex | girl | girl | boy | girl | girl | girl |