2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000400009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apoptotic markers in semen of infertile men: association with cigarette smoking

Abstract: Objectives: (i) To examine the role of apoptosis in the pathogenesis of DNA damage in semen from infertile men. (ii) To assess the effects of smoking on apoptotic markers and seminal parameters among infertile men. (iii) To assess the correlation of apoptosis with conventional semen parameters. Materials and Methods:The study was carried out on 70 men with idiopathic infertility, divided into two groups: thirty infertile non smokers and forty infertile smokers. In addition to 60 fertile men (30 non smokers and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
24
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
3
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies investigating the effect of cigarette smoking on DNA fragmentation are summarised in Table . Notwithstanding most of the studies found a significant association between smoking and SDF and/or various seminal parameters (Cui, Jing, Wu, Wang, & Li, ; El‐Melegy & Ali, ; Sun, Jurisicova, & Casper, ; Taha, Ezz‐Aldin, Sayed, Ghandour, & Mostafa, ), some of the studies failed to find any association between them (Belcheva et al, ; De Bantel et al, ). Elshal et al have studied effects of cigarette smoking on sperm DNA fragmentation, semen parameters and abnormally high DNA stainability (HDS) in a group comprising of infertile smokers ( n = 34), infertile nonsmokers ( n = 36) and fertile nonsmokers ( n = 16).…”
Section: Cigarette Smoking and Genetic Alterationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies investigating the effect of cigarette smoking on DNA fragmentation are summarised in Table . Notwithstanding most of the studies found a significant association between smoking and SDF and/or various seminal parameters (Cui, Jing, Wu, Wang, & Li, ; El‐Melegy & Ali, ; Sun, Jurisicova, & Casper, ; Taha, Ezz‐Aldin, Sayed, Ghandour, & Mostafa, ), some of the studies failed to find any association between them (Belcheva et al, ; De Bantel et al, ). Elshal et al have studied effects of cigarette smoking on sperm DNA fragmentation, semen parameters and abnormally high DNA stainability (HDS) in a group comprising of infertile smokers ( n = 34), infertile nonsmokers ( n = 36) and fertile nonsmokers ( n = 16).…”
Section: Cigarette Smoking and Genetic Alterationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,4 There is emerging evidence to suggest that maternal smoking during pregnancy can affect the adult semen parameters of the male fetus, but the effect on the male offspring's reproductive function secondary to paternal smoking still remains unproven. 5 Smoking not only induces DNA damage in sperm, 6,7 but paternal smoking has also been associated with DNA damage in the cord blood of the offspring, an increase in miscarriage of the partner, congenital malformations and low birth weight of the fetus.…”
Section: Reproductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the review showed conflicting evidence of the effect of male smoking on clinical pregnancy rates and no evidence to support reductions in fertilisation rates or live birth rates. 7 Delaying fertility treatment to make lifestyle changes in men is unlikely to offer any benefit in improving outcomes of treatment. That men should stop smoking to improve their fertility is good practice rather than evidence-based advice.…”
Section: Reproductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In humans, it has been shown that cigarette smoke is able to alter sperm density, motility, morphology and seminal fluid leukocyte concentration. Effects of the cigarette smoke on sperm DNA integrity, aneuploidy rate, production of free oxygen radicals (ROS) have been evaluated, but the results of these studies appear conflicting: some have shown a negative effect (Stillman et al, 1986; Close et al, 1990; Pacifici et al, 1993; Sofikitis et al, 1995; Vine et al, 1996; Curtis et al, 1997; Rubes et al, 1998; Zhang et al, 2000; Saleh et al, 2002; Kunzle et al, 2003; Said et al, 2005; Sepaniak et al, 2006; Gaur et al, 2007; Reina Bouvet et al, 2007; Calogero et al, 2009; Chohan and Badawy, 2010; El-Melegy and Ali, 2011), while others reported no effect (Vogt et al, 1986; Dikshit et al, 1987; Oldereid et al, 1989; Lewin et al, 1991; Belcheva et al, 2004). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%