| Literature DB >> 25073983 |
Maurizio Dattilo1, Dominique Cornet, Edouard Amar, Marc Cohen, Yves Menezo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sperm chromatin structure is often impaired; mainly due to oxidative damage. Antioxidant treatments do not consistently produce fertility improvements and, when given at high doses, they might block essential oxidative processes such as chromatin compaction. This study was intended to assess the effect on male sub-fertility of a pure one carbon cycle nutritional support without strong antioxidants.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25073983 PMCID: PMC4119238 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-71
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
Figure 1The one carbon cycle and the transsulphuration pathway. The one carbon cycle (upper part) provides activated methyl groups for transmethylation reactions: methionine is the carbon unit donor, being activated by adenosylation to SAMe. Release of the carbon unit to any acceptor generates S-adenosyl-homocysteine and then Hcy. Hcy is subsequently remethylated (recycled) to methionine. Alternatively, Hcy may enter the transsulphuration pathway (lower part) by forming a complex with serine by the highly regulated cystathionine β-synthase (4), leading to the synthesis of GSH.
Demographic characteristics of patients and their female partners
| 37 (25–63, 5.5) | 35 (25–44, 4.4) | |
| 19 (23%) | | |
| 14 (17%) | | |
| 51 (61%) | | |
| | 28 (33%) | |
| 2.4 (2–6) | ||
Responder rates and their DFI and SDI values before and after the treatment, mean values (standard deviation)
| 84 (100) | 29.7% | 23.1% | 40.1% | 36.3% | |||
| 60 (71%) | 33.0% | 20.0% | −13.0% (10.66) | 38.5% | 34.6% | −3.9% (13.64) | |
| 54 (64%) | 28.5% | 21.4% | −7.0% (14.17) | 42.0% | 30.2% | −11.8% (8.88) | |
| 40 (48%) | 31.8% | 18.8% | −13.1% (10.74) | 40.2% | 28.9% | −11.4% (8.40) | |
*p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test. Statistically significant differences in bold.
Pregnancy rates in 84 ART-resistant patients treated with Condensyl™
| 84 | 40 | 47.6% | | 33 | 39.3% | | |
| 40 | 28 | 70.0% | 23 | 57.5% | |||
| 54 | 35 | 64.8% | 30 | 55.6% | |||
| 60 | 33 | 55.0% | 26 | 43.3% | 0.23 | ||
| 10 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |||
Independence CHI2 test. Statistically significant differences in bold.
DFI and SDI response and pregnancy rates according to the presence of any female factor
| 28 | 25.1% | 25.9% | 0.8% | 0.145 | 41.6% | 45.8% | 4.3% | 0.732 | 4.1% (2) | 2.0% (1) | |
| 56 | 32.1% | 21.7% | −10.4% | 39.4% | 31.6% | −7.8% | 67.9% (38) | 57.1% (32) | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
*Wilcoxon test; **Mann–Whitney test; ***Independence CHI2 test. Statistically significant differences in bold.
DFI and SDI response according to the occurrence of a clinical pregnancy, mean values (standard deviation)
| | | | | | | | | | |
| YES | 40 (47.6) | 29.4% | 20.1% | −9.3% (13.61) | 0.168 | 40.6% | 29.3% | −11.3% (12.81) | |
| 44 (52.4) | 30.1% | 25.9% | −4.2% (14.38) | | 39.6% | 42.6% | 3.0% (11.10) | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 18 (21.5) | 23.2% | 18.4% | −4.8% (9.38) | 0.571 | 44.8% | 29.8% | −15.0% (11.11) | ||
| 66 (78.5) | 31.5% | 24.4% | −7.2% (15.23) | | 38.8% | 38.0% | −0.7% (13.00) | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 22 (33) | 34.4% | 21.4% | −13.0% (15.52) | 37.2% | 29.0% | −8.2% (13.54) | |||
| 44 (67) | 30.1% | 25.9% | −4.2% (14.38) | 39.6% | 42.6% | 3.0% (11.10) | |||
Mann–Whitney test. Statistically significant differences in bold.