Diagnostics of DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa: Are sperm chromatin structure analysis and sperm chromatin dispersion tests (SCD‐HaloSpermG2 ^® ) comparable?

Abstract

Men affected with idiopathic infertility often display basic spermiogramme values similar to fertile individuals, questioning the diagnostic impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) thresholds used. This study explored sperm DNA fragmentation in single ejaculates from 14 fertile donors and 42 patients with idiopathic infertility providing semen for assisted reproductive techniques in a university fertility clinic. Each ejaculate was simultaneously studied for sperm DNA fragmentation by the flow cytometer‐based sperm chromatin structure analysis (SCSA) and the new light‐microscopy‐based sperm chromatin dispersion assay (SCD‐HaloSpermG2®), before and after sperm selection for in vitro fertilisation with a colloid discontinuous gradient. The WHO semen variables did not differ between groups, but DNA fragmentation after SCSA (DFI) or SCD (SDF) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in patients (DFI: 40.2% ± 3.0 vs. SDF: 40.3% ± 1.4) than in fertile donors (DFI: 17.1% ± 2.1 vs. SDF: 20.9% ± 2.5). Sperm selection led to lower proportions of DNA‐fragmented spermatozoa (DFI: 11.9 ± 1.7 vs. SCD: 10.0 ± 0.9, p < 0.05). The techniques output correlated highly and significantly (r2 = 0.82). DNA fragmentation is confirmed as a relevant variable for scrutinising patients with idiopathic infertility, beyond the evidently insufficient WHO semen analyses. Since both techniques yielded similar results, the reduced necessity of complex equipment when running SCD ought to be considered for a clinical setting.

Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure

“…It is currently challenging for researchers and clinicians to compare DFI derived from different assays across diverse studies to assess the risk of male factor infertility. In our results, a higher DFI was recorded when using a SCD kit than when using SCSA, and a similar result has been found in other studies [20,24,25]. The results regarding CV and technical repeatability appear to be contentious; the Halosperm pioneer laboratory reported a CV of 6%-12% [10], which is much lower than our observed values (2%-54% for CANfrag and 7%-62% for Halosperm).…”

Correlation between sperm DNA fragmentation index and semen parameters in 418 men seen at a fertility center

“…For these reasons, various authors have recommended the introduction of sperm DNA fragmentation analysis as a routine and complementary test in semen analysis (Lewis & Aitken, 2005;Fortunato et al, 2013). In this study, we uses the SCD test due its high sensitivity to detect sperm with DNA fragmentation (Chohan et al, 2006;Zhang et al, 2010;Liffner et al, 2019).…”

“…(Fernandez et al, 2003;Fernandez et al, 2005). Studies have shown that SCD has high sensitivity to detect sperm with DNA fragmentation (Chohan et al, 2006;Zhang et al, 2010;Liffner et al, 2019). Different studies using SCD test have determined the reproductive capacity of the sperm and its correlation with seminal parameters and embryo quality after in vitro fertilization (Velez de La Calle et al, 2008;Feijó & Esteves, 2013;Tandara et al, 2013;Acosta & Dueñas, 2014;Acosta et al, 2015;Borges et al, 2019).…”

Does sperm DNA fragmentation have negative impact on embryo morphology and morphokinetics in IVF programme?

“…Sperm DNA integrity is a critical parameter that plays a fundamental role in embryo development and pregnancy rate (Liffner et al., 2019). Both sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) and the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase‐mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labelling (TUNEL) assay are gold standard for identification of the sperm DNA damage.…”