| Literature DB >> 35197681 |
Marija Kljajic1, Mohamad Eid Hammadeh1, Gudrun Wagenpfeil2, Simona Baus1, Panagiotis Sklavounos1, Erich-Franz Solomayer1, Mariz Kasoha1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient nutrition and inappropriate diet have been related to many diseases. Although the literature confirms the hypothesis that particular nutritional factors can influence the quality of semen, until today, there are no specific dietary recommendations created for infertile males. Since the male contribution to the fertility of a couple is crucial, it is of high importance to determine the dietary factors that can affect male fertility. AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences in sperm quality parameters, sperm oxidative stress values and sperm acrosome reaction between vegan diet consumers and non-vegans. SETTING ANDEntities:
Keywords: Acrosome reaction; diet; oxidation-reduction potential; sperm quality; vegan
Year: 2021 PMID: 35197681 PMCID: PMC8812397 DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_90_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Reprod Sci ISSN: 1998-4766
Figure 1Spermatozoa fluorescence pattern stained with fluorescein isothiocyanate-peanut agglutinin for acrosome status evaluation. (a) Acrosome-intact cells with uniform green fluorescein isothiocyanate-peanut agglutinin fluorescence of acrosome cap. (b) Acrosome-reacted cells that have been stained only by the equatorial part of the acrosome. (c) Acrosome-reacted cells with no staining of acrosome cap
Figure 2Acridine orange test: Human spermatozoa stained with acridine orange and evaluated under fluorescent microscope. (a) Spermatozoa with normal DNA content. (b) Spermatozoa with damaged DNA
Clinical and laboratory data of studied groups
| Parameter | Non-vegan ( | Vegan ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 24 (21-27) | 23.5 (18-31) | 0.861 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.8 (20.1-29.9) | 22.4 (20.4-28.1) | 0.271 |
| Volume (mL) | 2.9 (1.6-8.2) | 3.6 (2.1-6.1) | 0.447 |
| pH | 8.70±0.16 | 8.30±0.13 | <0.001 |
| Total sperm count (Mil) | 119.7 (64.8-442.8) | 224.7 (117-369) | 0.011 |
| Concentration (Mil/mL) | 43.5 (19-77) | 53.5 (41-120) | 0.148 |
| Motility (PR + NPR) | 51.9±7.57 | 60.8±6.14 | 0.011 |
| PR-A (%) | 1 (0-7) | 17.5 (15-30) | <0.001 |
| PR-B (%) | 41.9±5.54 | 36.3±3.97 | 0.03 |
| Vitality (%) | 67.5±3.95 | 71.5±4.92 | 0.10 |
| Morphology (%) | 2.8 (2-5) | 2.8 (2-5) | 0.91 |
| MAR-test (%) | 17 (4-58) | 7 (0-17) | 0.041 |
| ORP (mV) | 51.4 (37.1-102.7) | 28.2 (15.8-50.4) | 0.001 |
| sORP (mV/106 sperm/mL) | 1.5 (0.6-2.8) | 0.4 (0.3-0.9) | <0.001 |
| AO RED (%) | 14.7 (7-33.5) | 8.2 (3-19.5) | 0.05 |
| AR-reacted (%) | 72 (25-90) | 52.5 (30-80) | 0.85 |
P≤0.05 was considered statistically significant, Results are presented median, range. n=Number of tested cases, BMI=Body mass index, PR=Progressive rapid, NPR=Non-PR, ORP=Oxidation-reduction potential, sORP=Static ORP, AO=Acridine orange, AR=Acrosome reaction, RED=Spermatozoa with impaired DNA, MAR=Mixed antiglobulin reaction
Figure 3sORP level in vegan and non-vegan groups. Results are presented as median (range)
Figure 4Total sperm count level in vegan and non-vegan groups. Results are presented as median (range)
Figure 5Percentage of rapid motile sperm in vegan and non-vegan groups. Results are presented as median (range)