Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on March 6, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(5):1035-1043; doi:10.1093/humrep/den058
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/5/1035    most recent
den058v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muratori, M.
Right arrow Articles by Baldi, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muratori, M.
Right arrow Articles by Baldi, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Nuclear staining identifies two populations of human sperm with different DNA fragmentation extent and relationship with semen parameters

M. Muratori1, S. Marchiani1, L. Tamburrino1, V. Tocci1, P. Failli2, G. Forti1 and E. Baldi1,3

1 Department of Clinical Physiopathology, Andrology Unit, Center for Research, Transfer and High Education DeNothe, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini, 6, I-50139 Firenze, Italy 2 Department of Pharmacology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

3 Correspondence address. Tel: +39-0 554271486/7; Fax: +39-0 554271371; E-mail: m.muratori{at}dfc.unifi.it

BACKGROUND: Sperm DNA fragmentation is a possible predictive parameter for male fertility status. The occurrence of M540 bodies in semen of subfertile subjects affects flow cytometric investigations in sperm. We set up a new method to evaluate DNA fragmentation excluding M540 bodies.

METHODS: DNA fragmentation was evaluated by flow cytometry in semen of 75 subjects both by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated fluorescein-dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL, traditional method) and by double staining with TUNEL and propidium iodide (PI, new method).

RESULTS: The use of the new method revealed that TUNEL underestimates sperm DNA fragmentation in flow cytometry and showed two sperm populations stained with low (PIdim) and high (PIbr) avidity for PI. The PIdim population is entirely composed of DNA fragmented sperm and its incidence shows highly significant negative correlations with morphology, motility, sperm count and concentration (respectively, r = –0.51, –0.52, –0.46 and –0.32, n = 75). DNA fragmentation in the PIbr sperm population is independent from semen quality.

CONCLUSIONS: The correlations between sperm DNA breakage and semen quality previously reported are mainly driven by the occurrence of the PIdim population. DNA fragmented sperm in this population are more likely to have poorer morphology, reduced motility and thus a reduced chance to fertilize an oocyte than DNA damaged sperm in PIbr population. Distinguishing between the two types of sperm DNA fragmentation appears to be important in clinical investigations.

Key words: sperm/DNA fragmentation/terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated fluorescein-dUTP nick end labeling/nuclear staining/M540 bodies

Submitted on September 13, 2007; resubmitted on December 6, 2007; accepted on February 7, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
R.J. Aitken and G.N. De Iuliis
On the possible origins of DNA damage in human spermatozoa
Mol. Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2010; 16(1): 3 - 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.