Next Article in Journal
Metagenome Profiling Identifies Potential Biocontrol Agents for Selaginella kraussiana in New Zealand
Next Article in Special Issue
Automated Nuclear Cartography Reveals Conserved Sperm Chromosome Territory Localization across 2 Million Years of Mouse Evolution
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Analyses Confirm SNPs in HSPA8 and ERBB2 are Associated with Milk Protein Concentration in Chinese Holstein Cattle
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genetic Instability and Chromatin Remodeling in Spermatids
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/genes10020105
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Single and Double Strand Sperm DNA Damage: Different Reproductive Effects on Male Fertility

by
Jordi Ribas-Maynou
* and
Jordi Benet
*
Unitat de Biologia Cel·lular i Genètica Mèdica, Departament de Biologia Cel·lular, Fisiologia i Immunologia, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2019, 10(2), 105; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020105
Submission received: 30 December 2018 / Revised: 21 January 2019 / Accepted: 29 January 2019 / Published: 31 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Male Germline Chromatin)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reproductive diseases have become a growing worldwide problem and male factor plays an important role in the reproductive diagnosis, prognosis and design of assisted reproductive treatments. Sperm cell holds the mission of carrying the paternal genetic complement to the oocyte in order to contribute to an euploid zygote with proper DNA integrity. Sperm DNA fragmentation had been used for decades as a male fertility test, however, its usefulness have arisen multiple debates, especially around Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) treatments. In the recent years, it has been described that different types of sperm DNA breaks (single and double strand DNA breaks) cause different clinical reproductive effects. On one hand, single-strand DNA breaks are present extensively as a multiple break points in all regions of the genome, are related to oxidative stress and cause a lack of clinical pregnancy or an increase of the conception time. On the other hand, double-strand DNA breaks are mainly localized and attached to the sperm nuclear matrix as a very few break points, are possibly related to a lack of DNA repair in meiosis and cause a higher risk of miscarriage, low embryo quality and higher risk of implantation failure in ICSI cycles. The present work also reviews different studies that may contribute in the understanding of sperm chromatin as well as treatments to prevent sperm DNA damage.

1. Introduction

Different fertility societies around the globe and the World Health Organization estimate that infertility is present in between 7% and 15% of couples in reproductive age [1,2]. In a high number of cases female factors and especially female age [3], are the most important causes of infertility, however, different male factors are present in at least 50% of the couples presenting this disorder [4]. Due to the high percentage of incidence in the pathology, recent research suggests that sperm cell and sperm DNA may have a major influence not only in natural conception but also in fertility treatments [5,6].
In front of a fertility disorder or a fertility treatment, microscopic semen analysis measuring sperm concentration, motility and morphology has been the traditional and important first approach to male infertility and, although a high decrease of these parameters had been associated to a lack of achievement of natural pregnancy [7] and nowadays home-based technologies in order to advance the first diagnosis are emerging [8]. However, in most cases these parameters are not indicative of the positive performance of assisted reproduction techniques (ART) [5,9]. In fact, although they are improving, ICSI treatments reached limited implantation rates [10]. Because of that, a deeper study is necessary in most cases to elucidate the alteration in order to design the best treatment in each case.

2. Sperm DNA and Sperm DNA Damage

Spermatogenesis is a very complex cellular process that implies both meiosis and cell differentiation. The main stage of meiosis is in prophase I where, spermatocytes deliberately produce double-strand DNA breaks (DSB) through Spo11 protein [11,12]. These DSB are necessary for homologous chromosomes to allow DNA recombination. Then, after strand invasion, DSB activate the DNA repair machinery through the protein kinase ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) in order to repair the free ends and therefore generate the chiasma by homologous recombination and ATM is also responsible of inhibiting the formation of new DSB by Spo11 [12,13]. After meiosis, haploid round spermatids suffer a cell differentiation, loosing most part of their cytoplasm and acquiring midpiece and flagellum in order to possess motility after ejaculation [14]. However, in terms of chromatin, the most important change happening in spermatids is the exchange of histones by protamines, which extraordinarily compact about 85% of the human sperm DNA in toroidal structures tied between them and bond to the nuclear matrix by the matrix attachment regions (MAR regions) (Figure 1). These MAR regions remain compacted by histones and represent a very small part of the genome estimated to be around 15% of the human sperm chromatin [15,16]. This high-grade of DNA compaction with protamines, coupled to a motile architecture of the cell, give the sperm the perfect features to carry male genetic material to oocyte to form the zygote. It is obvious that if this male genetic material contains alterations, these may affect the zygote somehow [17]. In fact, it is undeniable that DNA breaks induce a cellular response in somatic cells leading to an activation of DNA repair machinery, apoptosis or cell transformation, being the basis of cancer and other diseases [18,19]. Different works in embryos analysing the effect of induced DNA breaks in animal sperm cells through radiation observed multiple chromosomal alterations such as chromosome breaks, translocations, fusions and acentric fragments in the zygote [17,20].
In the last decade, the previous evidences suggested the incorporation of the sperm DNA fragmentation tests as a promising analysis in male reproduction and multiple studies were performed in the field since then [21]. Regarding natural conception, multiple works show a relation of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) to a lack of clinical pregnancy and an increase of time of conception [22,23,24]. However, after ICSI procedures, opposite results were found by different research groups regarding embryo quality, implantation and pregnancy outcomes, being some studies that show a positive relation of SDF [25,26,27,28] and others that show a negative relation of SDF to clinical outcomes [29,30,31,32,33]. This controversy, coupled that only a few studies were conducted in a prospective and double blind manner, led the American Society for Reproductive Medicine to refuse its routine use in 2013 [34]. However, some promising results arisen in the last years might be the explanation why the traditionally measured sperm DNA damage present a lack of predictive power in ICSI.
The debate in sperm DNA fragmentation started regarding which of all DNA analysis techniques, that rely on different mechanisms for DNA breaks detection, was the best for the male infertility diagnosis. Understanding the basis of each technique and the correlations between them is critical to understand their implications in the male fertility diagnosis and to compare between them. Techniques are explained in the following part of the review and are summarized in Table 1.
On one hand, the most used techniques for the analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation have traditionally been the Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labelling (TUNEL), Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA) and Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD) test. These techniques offer a unique value of sperm with DNA fragmentation, independently of the type (single and double-strand DNA breaks) and the region (toroids compacted in protamines or MAR regions compacted in histones).
TUNEL assay [35] relies on a terminal TdT transferase for the labelling of 3′ free ends of DNA, resulting in a higher labelling on fragmented sperm cells. Different modifications have been introduced in the protocol in order to increase its sensitivity in sperm cells, such as the use of a previous DNA decompaction using dithiothreitol (DTT) or the use of flow cytometer [36,37,38].
SCSA is based on an acid denaturation of the chromatin and staining with acridine orange. When DNA breaks are present, chromatin is more susceptible to denaturation and acridine orange accumulates in the DNA emitting in red fluorescence. When DNA breaks are not present, acridine orange intercalates in the double helix and emits in green fluorescence. Fluorescence is captured using a cytometer in order to determine DNA fragmentation [39].
SCD test uses a sperm lysis solution based on DTT, sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and NaCl to remove the sperm membrane and protamines, that causes the formation of DNA haloes, which allow the differentiation of fragmented and non-fragmented sperm cells [40].
On the other hand, Comet assay [41] relies on a DNA decompaction and protein depletion coupled to a single-cell electrophoresis in an agarose micro gel. DNA molecules that contain breaks move towards the cathode and the length of the “comet tail” can be measured to determine the grade of DNA fragmentation at a single cell level. This technique has been applied in multiple different protocols, which usually vary in agarose concentrations and in electrophoresis times [42,43]. As the Comet assay can be performed in alkaline or neutral pH, different types of DNA breaks can be detected (Table 1) (Figure 1): (i) alkaline Comet assay performed in a small electrophoresis time (about four minutes) detect mostly single-strand DNA breaks affecting both toroidal regions and MAR regions in a high number of break points [44,45] and (ii) neutral Comet assay can detect two types of double-strand DNA breaks (Figure 2): (a) extensive DSB, which represent a very small part of total DSB and can be observed as very long comet tails separated from the sperm core; and (b) localized DSB localized and attached to the MAR region, as demonstrated in pulsed-field gel electrophoresis [43,44,45,46], being the most common DSB. Although extensive DSB result in longer Comet tails, they cannot be distinguished from localized DSB in a single Comet. However, when a semen sample present high number of sperm cells with extensive DSB (long tails), single-strand DNA damage is also present in a high amount (Ribas-Maynou personal observation). Previous studies had shown that localized DSB represent very few break points in the genome, as long chromatin fibres with a break point in the end can be seen in a detailed neutral Comet image (Figure 2A), which is supported by Kaneko et al., using pulsed field gel electrophoresis [47]. We demonstrated that localized DSB remain attached to the sperm nuclear matrix [45], maybe through a TOP2B or similar protein [45,46], a very important feature taking into account that the nuclear matrix is inherited to the male pronucleus in the zygote [46,48,49,50], giving a chance to the embryo to repair the DSB.
Studies using all the techniques showed that oxidative damage detected by alkaline Comet assay presented a good correlation to TUNEL, SCSA and SCD techniques [23,51,52]. Although these techniques may potentially detect double-strand breaks, a study conducted by our group analysing the same semen samples with five methodologies showed that no correlation was present with the neutral Comet assay [23]. Then, the latter would be the only technique that is able to differentially detect MAR-region double-strand breaks [23,44], whereas TUNEL, SCSA and SCD may detect extensive DSB. A Comet assay variant (two-tailed Comet assay) applying both alkaline and neutral Comet assay in the same slide by turning it 90º between electrophoresis allows to distinguish single and double-strand DNA breaks on the same sperm cell [53]. However, no studies have been performed comparing these techniques and alkaline or neutral Comet assay separately in order to elucidate if double-strand breaks detected in two-tailed Comet assay correspond to MAR region localized DSB.

3. Oxidative DNA Damage, Alkaline Comet Assay and Pregnancy Achievement

Using alkaline Comet assay in different cohorts, an study published in 2012 [43] showed that the extensive single-strand DNA breaks were reversely associated to the achievement of natural pregnancy independently of the neutral Comet results (Figure 1 and Table 1). This was confirmed and compared with TUNEL, SCSA and SCD tests in 2013, demonstrating also that alkaline Comet is the most sensitive technique for the prediction of natural pregnancy achievement [23,43]. Which is also in accordance to the numerous studies from other research groups that find similar association in natural pregnancy using TUNEL, SCSA, SCD and Comet assay tests [5,51,54,55,56,57,58].
Single-strand breaks are produced mainly due to reactive oxygen species (ROS) [42,53,59], which may come from exogenous sources such as environmental toxicants, smoking, alcohol, diet, radiation and so forth or from endogenous sources such as an increase of leukocytes, presence of varicocele or even the ROS generated by mitochondria for the movement of sperm cell [60,61,62]. Free radicals may cause lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA base modifications such as 8-OH-guanine and 8-OH-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), an oxidized base adduct that destabilize DNA structure and cause a DNA break [63,64,65]. This affectation does not find a restriction by DNA condensation and therefore may affect both toroids compacted in protamines and MAR regions compacted in histones [44]. Then, if such an extensive damage happens to the sperm DNA due to oxidative stress, the sperm membranes would also be affected and usually sperm motility is lost. Because of that, a strong negative relation between progressive motility and oxidative damage (single-strand DNA damage) analyzed using TUNEL, SCSA, SCD and alkaline Comet [55,61,66].
As mentioned before in this review, controversial results are found in different studies regarding ICSI outcomes: some of them which found predictive value of oxidative damage [25,26,27,28] and other with opposite results [29,30,31,32,33]. If single-strand DNA breaks present a correlation to progressive motility and sperm morphology and ICSI procedures use the most motile sperm cells with better morphology, paternal genome should be free of oxidative damage. In this regard, a work by Gosalvez et al. [67] demonstrated that motile sperm organelle morphology examination (MSOME) selected sperm cells were free of DNA damage analysed by SCD test. Moreover, a work using Comet assay suggested that grade I and II sperm cells present lower incidence of oxidative DNA damage than grade III and IV [68]. These results need to be further confirmed in conventional ICSI sperm selection. However, our data suggest that no relation is present between alkaline Comet and embryo quality, embryo kinetics or implantation [69].

4. Double-Strand DNA Damage, Recurrent Miscarriage and Preimplantation Failure in ICSI Cycles

Analysing the data of the patients and donors with high DSB, a specific profile was observed with low oxidative damage and high neutral comet values in patients with first trimester recurrent miscarriage where all related female factors were discarded and in one subgroup of fertile donors [44]. In a recent study, our group has found that patients with this profile who undergo ICSI treatments produce embryos with a delayed embryo development to blastocyst, which also cause lower implantation rates [69]. Other works also show that double-strand breaks may contribute to a higher implantation failure risk [6,25]. Since implantation failures in ICSI cycles and miscarriages present similar profiles with high DSB, one may think that they might have similar origin. In fact, small number of DNA breaks localized in concrete regions of the genome might induce a cell failure where the affected regions are necessary for the development. In our last study, embryos that achieved implantation presented faster embryo kinetics than those that did not achieve implantation [69]. In fact, faster embryo kinetics had been associated to embryo euploidy [70,71,72].
DSB are the most lethal alteration that may happen in a zygote, since paternal and maternal pronucleus remain separated in early mammalian embryos and, therefore, no complementary chain would be available for DNA repair [73,74,75] and a few number of DSB are sufficient to delay cell cycle [76]. It is important to note that paternal double-strand breaks remain attached to the nuclear matrix and probably to other proteins such as TOP2B [20,46,77] and the nuclear matrix is inherited at male pronucleus until first mitotic division [49,78]. This may be crucial at the zygote, because it may give a chance to correctly repair both free ends of the double-strand break. There is a consensus point that oocyte quality may play a role in this DNA repair, since different studies proved that early embryos are able to repair DNA damage [79,80,81,82,83,84]. In this sense, in patients with DSB, the most significant delay observed in the embryo kinetics was just after fertilization, indicating that DNA repair machinery may be active in this stage [69]. Recent studies in sperm cells demonstrated that MAR regions are required as a scaffold for DNA replication after fertilization [48] and, in somatic cells, nuclear matrix also is involved in transcription, cell regulation and replication [85,86]. In mammals, inducing DSB in sperm cells and used these sperm cells to fertilize eggs observed chromosomal alterations in paternal genome of the embryo and showing also a delay in the first embryo cleavage [17,20,87]. Moreover, studies inducing double-strand DNA breaks in mice sperm through radiation observed a p53 and p21 related response and less number of foetuses [88,89] or less survival of offspring in a dose dependent manner [90].

5. Prevention of DNA Damage

The data presented in the studies referenced before supports that oxidative damage may affect the pregnancy achievement capacity due to misbalanced levels of oxidants/antioxidants [61,91].
The use of antioxidants has been widely applied in subfertile males [92]. Several works demonstrated that they are a positive contribution on sperm count, motility, morphology and also proved that they help reducing oxidative DNA fragmentation [93,94,95,96]. Although there are very few studies with randomized and placebo controls, Cochrane review suggests that the use of antioxidants causes from 1.8 to 4.6 fold increase in the chances of achieving a natural pregnancy. However, up to a 6.5 fold increase in miscarriages might be observed [97]. In ICSI treatments, it is still not clear if antioxidants could help on improving pregnancy and birth rates [98,99,100]. High quality studies including different groups of patients are necessary in order to elucidate the need of antioxidants in ICSI procedures.
Treatments for the reduction of double-strand sperm DNA damage should also reduce the miscarriage risk and the implantation failure risk in ICSI cycles, showing also less delay on embryo kinetics. Until our knowledge, no validated treatment reduce the incidence of MAR-region localized DSB. However, a study conducted in humans in 2006 by Schmid and colleagues demonstrated that men with daily caffeine consumption presented increased values of DSB measured with neutral Comet independently of male age in healthy non-smokers [101]. Caffeine is a known inhibitor of DNA repair, as it has been described that inhibits ATM kinase [102,103] and DNA resection in homologous recombination through Rad51 [104,105]. Also, it has been reported to affect cell cycle at both G1/S and G2/M checkpoints and inducing programmed cell death through p53-dependent pathway [106]. Studies in animals reported that caffeine administration to rats caused an impairment of pregnancy [107]. Other studies inducing DNA strand breaks in sperm cells through radiation and cultivating the oocytes and the produced embryos in caffeine demonstrated that chromosome and chromatid aberrations persist in the zygote, indicating oocyte DNA repair is inhibited by caffeine [17]. Since spermatocytes must produce double-strand breaks through Spo11 in prophase I in order to perform DNA recombination and later, they need to repair these DSB. According to previous results, the consumption of caffeine would impair ATM kinase and/or resection of double-strand breaks [104,105] and may induce that a few double-strand breaks would not be repaired, causing that mature sperm cells present DSB [101]. Further basic studies are needed to explain how a spermatocyte with double-strand breaks can escape the pachytene checkpoint [108,109]. Reducing the incidence of DSB in sperm cell would improve clinical outcomes in terms of miscarriage and implantation in ICSI cycles.

Author Contributions

J.R.-M. and J.B. contributed in manuscript writing and revision.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Economy, Industry and Competitiveness Ministry, Madrid, Spain; Project PI14/Q1 00119) and Generalitat de Catalunya (Project 2017SGR1796).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Thoma, M.E.; McLain, A.C.; Louis, J.F.; King, R.B.; Trumble, A.C.; Sundaram, R.; Buck Louis, G.M. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1324–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Louis, J.F.; Thoma, M.E.; Sørensen, D.N.; McLain, A.C.; King, R.B.; Sundaram, R.; Keiding, N.; Buck Louis, G.M. The prevalence of couple infertility in the United States from a male perspective: Evidence from a nationally representative sample. Andrology 2013, 1, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Baird, D.T.; Collins, J.; Egozcue, J.; Evers, L.H.; Gianaroli, L.; Leridon, H.; Sunde, A.; Templeton, A.; Van Steirteghem, A.; Cohen, J.; et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum. Reprod. Update 2005, 11, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. De Kretser, D.M. Male infertility. Lancet 1997, 349, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lewis, S.E.M.; Simon, L. Clinical implications of sperm DNA damage. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.) 2010, 13, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Simon, L.; Murphy, K.; Shamsi, M.B.; Liu, L.; Emery, B.; Aston, K.I.; Hotaling, J.; Carrell, D.T. Paternal influence of sperm DNA integrity on early embryonic development. Hum. Reprod. 2014, 29, 2402–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Cooper, T.G.; Noonan, E.; von Eckardstein, S.; Auger, J.; Baker, H.W.G.; Behre, H.M.; Haugen, T.B.; Kruger, T.; Wang, C.; Mbizvo, M.T.; et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum. Reprod. Update 2010, 16, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Yu, S.; Rubin, M.; Geevarughese, S.; Pino, J.S.; Rodriguez, H.F.; Asghar, W. Emerging technologies for home-based semen analysis. Andrology 2018, 6, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wang, C.; Swerdloff, R.S. Limitations of semen analysis as a test of male fertility and anticipated needs from newer tests. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 102, 1502–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Kupka, M.S.; D’Hooghe, T.; Ferraretti, A.P.; De Mouzon, J.; Erb, K.; Castilla, J.A.; Calhaz-Jorge, C.; De Geyter, C.; Goossens, V. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod. 2015, 31, 233–248. [Google Scholar]
  11. Love, C.C.; Kenney, R.M. Scrotal heat stress induces altered sperm chromatin structure associated with a decrease in protamine disulfide bonding in the stallion. Biol. Reprod. 1999, 60, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Keeney, S.; Lange, J.; Mohibullah, N. Self-organization of meiotic recombination initiation: General principles and molecular pathways. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2014, 48, 187–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cooper, T.J.; Wardell, K.; Garcia, V.; Neale, M.J. Homeostatic regulation of meiotic DSB formation by ATM/ATR. Exp. Cell Res. 2014, 329, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Alberts, B.; Johnson, A.; Lewis, J.; Raff, M.; Roberts, K.; Walter, P. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed.; Garland Sc.: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ward, W.S.; Coffey, D.S. Specific organization of genes in relation to the sperm nuclear matrix. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1990, 173, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ward, W.S. Function of sperm chromatin structural elements in fertilization and development. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 16, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Genescà, A.; Caballín, M.R.; Miró, R.; Benet, J.; Germà, J.R.; Egozcue, J. Repair of human sperm chromosome aberrations in the hamster egg. Hum. Genet. 1992, 89, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oh, J.; Symington, L. Role of the Mre11 complex in preserving genome integrity. Genes (Basel) 2018, 9, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Barnes, J.L.; Zubair, M.; John, K.; Poirier, M.C.; Martin, F.L. Carcinogens and DNA damage. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2018, 46, 1213–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gawecka, J.E.; Marh, J.; Ortega, M.; Yamauchi, Y.; Ward, M.A.; Ward, W.S. Mouse zygotes respond to severe sperm DNA damage by delaying paternal DNA replication and embryonic development. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lewis, S.E.M.; John Aitken, R.; Conner, S.J.; De Iuliis, G.; Evenson, D.P.; Henkel, R.; Giwercman, A.; Gharagozloo, P. The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: Recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2013, 27, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Evenson, D.P. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA®). Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 927, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Ribas-Maynou, J.; García-Peiró, A.; Fernández-Encinas, A.; Abad, C.; Amengual, M.J.; Prada, E.; Navarro, J.; Benet, J. Comprehensive analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation by five different assays: TUNEL assay, SCSA, SCD test and alkaline and neutral Comet assay. Andrology 2013, 1, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Peluso, G.; Palmieri, A.; Cozza, P.P.; Morrone, G.; Verze, P.; Longo, N.; Mirone, V. The study of spermatic DNA fragmentation and sperm motility in infertile subjects. Arch. Ital. di Urol. e Androl. 2013, 85, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Garolla, A.; Cosci, I.; Bertoldo, A.; Sartini, B.; Boudjema, E.; Foresta, C. DNA double strand breaks in human spermatozoa can be predictive for assisted reproductive outcome. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2015, 31, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Simon, L.; Brunborg, G.; Stevenson, M.; Lutton, D.; McManus, J.; Lewis, S.E.M. Clinical significance of sperm DNA damage in assisted reproduction outcome. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 25, 1594–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Simon, L.; Proutski, I.; Stevenson, M.; Jennings, D.; McManus, J.; Lutton, D.; Lewis, S.E.M. Sperm DNA damage has a negative association with live-birth rates after IVF. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2013, 26, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Meseguer, M.; Santiso, R.; Garrido, N.; García-Herrero, S.; Remohí, J.; Fernandez, J.L. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on pregnancy outcome depends on oocyte quality. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Esbert, M.; Pacheco, A.; Vidal, F.; Florensa, M.; Riqueros, M.; Ballesteros, A.; Garrido, N.; Calderón, G. Impact of sperm DNA fragmentation on the outcome of IVF with own or donated oocytes. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2011, 23, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thomson, L.K.; Zieschang, J.-A.; Clark, A.M. Oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in sperm has a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination but not intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 96, 843–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pregl Breznik, B.; Kovačič, B.; Vlaisavljević, V. Are sperm DNA fragmentation, hyperactivation and hyaluronan-binding ability predictive for fertilization and embryo development in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection? Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1233–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anifandis, G.; Bounartzi, T.; Messini, C.I.; Dafopoulos, K.; Markandona, R.; Sotiriou, S.; Tzavella, A.; Messinis, I.E. Sperm DNA fragmentation measured by Halosperm does not impact on embryo quality and ongoing pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI treatments. Andrologia 2015, 47, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Haghpanah, T.; Salehi, M.; Ghaffari Novin, M.; Masteri Farahani, R.; Fadaei-Fathabadi, F.; Dehghani-Mohammadabadi, M.; Azimi, H. Does sperm DNA fragmentation affect the developmental potential and the incidence of apoptosis following blastomere biopsy? Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 2016, 62, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. ASRM. The clinical utility of sperm DNA integrity testing: A guideline. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 673–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gorczyca, W.; Gong, J.; Darzynkiewicz, Z. Detection of DNA strand breaks in individual apoptotic cells by the in situ terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and nick translation assays. Cancer Res. 1993, 53, 1945–1951. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Sharma, R.; Masaki, J.; Agarwal, A. Sperm DNA fragmentation analysis using the TUNEL assay. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 927, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Mitchell, L.A.; De Iuliis, G.N.; Aitken, R.J. The TUNEL assay consistently underestimates DNA damage in human spermatozoa and is influenced by DNA compaction and cell vitality: Development of an improved methodology. Int. J. Androl. 2011, 34, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Domínguez-Fandos, D.; Camejo, M.I.; Ballescà, J.L.; Oliva, R. Human sperm DNA fragmentation: correlation of TUNEL results as assessed by flow cytometry and optical microscopy. Cytometry. A 2007, 71, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Evenson, D.; Jost, L. Sperm chromatin structure assay is useful for fertility assessment. Methods Cell Sci. 2000, 22, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fernández, J.L.; Muriel, L.; Goyanes, V.; Segrelles, E.; Gosálvez, J.; Enciso, M.; LaFromboise, M.; De Jonge, C. Simple determination of human sperm DNA fragmentation with an improved sperm chromatin dispersion test. Fertil. Steril. 2005, 84, 833–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, N.P.; McCoy, M.T.; Tice, R.R.; Schneider, E.L. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp. Cell Res. 1988, 175, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Simon, L.; Carrell, D.T. Sperm DNA damage measured by comet assay. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 927, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ribas-Maynou, J.; Garca-Peiro, A.; Abad, C.; Amengual, M.J.; Navarro, J.; Benet, J. Alkaline and neutral Comet assay profiles of sperm DNA damage in clinical groups. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ribas-Maynou, J.; García-Peiró, A.; Fernandez-Encinas, A.; Amengual, M.J.; Prada, E.; Cortés, P.; Navarro, J.; Benet, J. Double stranded sperm DNA breaks, measured by comet assay, are associated with unexplained recurrent miscarriage in couples without a female factor. PLoS ONE 2012, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ribas-Maynou, J.; Gawecka, J.E.; Benet, J.; Ward, W.S. Double-stranded DNA breaks hidden in the neutral Comet assay suggest a role of the sperm nuclear matrix in DNA integrity maintenance. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2014, 20, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gawecka, J.E.; Ribas-Maynou, J.; Benet, J.; Ward, W.S. A model for the control of DNA integrity by the sperm nuclear matrix. Asian J. Androl. 2015, 17. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaneko, S.; Yoshida, J.; Ishikawa, H.; Takamatsu, K. Single-cell pulsed-field gel electrophoresis to detect the early stage of DNA fragmentation in human sperm nuclei. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Shaman, J.A.; Yamauchi, Y.; Ward, W.S. Function of the sperm nuclear matrix. Arch. Androl. 2007, 53, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mohar, I.; Szczygiel, M.A.; Yanagimachi, R.; Ward, W.S. Sperm nuclear halos can transform into normal chromosomes after injection into oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2002, 62, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Shaman, J.A.; Yamauchi, Y.; Ward, W.S. The sperm nuclear matrix is required for paternal DNA replication. J. Cell. Biochem. 2007, 102, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Simon, L.; Liu, L.; Murphy, K.; Ge, S.; Hotaling, J.; Aston, K.I.; Emery, B.; Carrell, D.T. Comparative analysis of three sperm DNA damage assays and sperm nuclear protein content in couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Hum. Reprod. 2014, 29, 904–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chohan, K.R.; Griffin, J.T.; Lafromboise, M.; De Jonge, C.J.; Carrell, D.T. Comparison of chromatin assays for DNA fragmentation evaluation in human sperm. J. Androl. 2006, 27, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Enciso, M.; Sarasa, J.; Agarwal, A.; Fernández, J.L.; Gosálvez, J. A two-tailed Comet assay for assessing DNA damage in spermatozoa. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2009, 18, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saleh, R.A.; Agarwal, A.; Nelson, D.R.; Nada, E.A.; El-Tonsy, M.H.; Alvarez, J.G.; Thomas, A.J.; Sharma, R.K. Increased sperm nuclear DNA damage in normozoospermic infertile men: A prospective study. Fertil. Steril. 2002, 78, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Belloc, S.; Benkhalifa, M.; Cohen-Bacrie, M.; Dalleac, A.; Amar, E.; Zini, A. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid damage in normozoospermic men is related to age and sperm progressive motility. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 101, 1588–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Cho, C.-L.; Agarwal, A. Role of sperm DNA fragmentation in male factor infertility: A systematic review. Arab J. Urol. 2018, 16, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Santi, D.; Spaggiari, G.; Simoni, M. Sperm DNA fragmentation index as a promising predictive tool for male infertility diagnosis and treatment management – meta-analyses. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 37, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Simon, L.; Lutton, D.; McManus, J.; Lewis, S.E.M. Sperm DNA damage measured by the alkaline Comet assay as an independent predictor of male infertility and in vitro fertilization success. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 652–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Agarwal, A.; Prabakaran, S.A. Mechanism, measurement and prevention of oxidative stress in male reproductive physiology. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2005, 43, 963–974. [Google Scholar]
  60. Agarwal, A.; Virk, G.; Ong, C.; du Plessis, S.S. Effect of oxidative stress on male reproduction. World J. Mens. Health 2014, 32, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aitken, R.J.; De Iuliis, G.N. On the possible origins of DNA damage in human spermatozoa. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 16, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sakkas, D.; Alvarez, J.G. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome and analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 93, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Lord, T.; Aitken, R.J. Fertilization stimulates 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine repair and antioxidant activity to prevent mutagenesis in the embryo. Dev. Biol. 2015, 406, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. De Iuliis, G.N.; Thomson, L.K.; Mitchell, L.A.; Finnie, J.M.; Koppers, A.J.; Hedges, A.; Nixon, B.; Aitken, R.J. DNA damage in human spermatozoa is highly correlated with the efficiency of chromatin remodeling and the formation of 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine, a marker of oxidative stress. Biol. Reprod. 2009, 81, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Santiso, R.; Tamayo, M.; Gosálvez, J.; Meseguer, M.; Garrido, N.; Fernández, J.L. Simultaneous determination in situ of DNA fragmentation and 8-oxoguanine in human sperm. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 93, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Evgeni, E.; Lymberopoulos, G.; Touloupidis, S.; Asimakopoulos, B. Sperm nuclear DNA fragmentation and its association with semen quality in Greek men. Andrologia 2015, 47, 1166–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gosálvez, J.; Migueles, B.; López-fernández, C.; Sanchéz-martín, F.; Sáchez-martín, P. Single sperm selection and DNA fragmentation analysis: The case of MSOME/IMSI. Nat. Sci. Res. 2013, 5, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pastuszek, E.; Kiewisz, J.; Skowronska, P.; Liss, J.; Lukaszuk, M.; Bruszczynska, A.; Jakiel, G.; Lukaszuk, K. An investigation of the potential effect of sperm nuclear vacuoles in human spermatozoa on DNA fragmentation using a neutral and alkaline Comet assay. Andrology 2017, 5, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Casanovas, A.; Ribas-Maynou, J.; Lara-Cerrillo, S.; Jimenez-Macedo, A.R.; Hortal, O.; Benet, J.; Carrera, J.; Garcia-Peiró, A. Double-stranded sperm DNA damage is a cause of delay in embryo development and can impair implantation rates. Fertil. Steril. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Campbell, A.; Fishel, S.; Laegdsmand, M. Aneuploidy is a key causal factor of delays in blastulation: author response to “A cautionary note against aneuploidy risk assessment using time-lapse imaging”. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014, 28, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Basile, N.; del Carmen Nogales, M.; Bronet, F.; Florensa, M.; Riqueiros, M.; Rodrigo, L.; García-Velasco, J.; Meseguer, M. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 101, 699–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Campbell, A.; Fishel, S.; Bowman, N.; Duffy, S.; Sedler, M.; Thornton, S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2013, 27, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bernstein, K.A.; Rothstein, R. At loose ends: Resecting a double-strand break. Cell 2009, 137, 807–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Price, B.D.; D’Andrea, A.D. Chromatin remodeling at DNA double-strand breaks. Cell 2013, 152, 1344–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Reichmann, J.; Nijmeijer, B.; Hossain, M.J.; Eguren, M.; Schneider, I.; Politi, A.Z.; Roberti, M.J.; Hufnagel, L.; Hiiragi, T.; Ellenberg, J. Dual-spindle formation in zygotes keeps parental genomes apart in early mammalian embryos. Science 2018, 361, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Van den Berg, J.; G Manjón, A.; Kielbassa, K.; Feringa, F.M.; Freire, R.; Medema, R.H. A limited number of double-strand DNA breaks is sufficient to delay cell cycle progression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, 10132–10144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Yamauchi, Y.; Shaman, J.A.; Ward, W.S. Topoisomerase II-mediated breaks in spermatozoa cause the specific degradation of paternal DNA in fertilized oocytes. Biol. Reprod. 2007, 76, 666–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ward, W.S.; Kimura, Y.; Yanagimachi, R. An intact sperm nuclear matrix may be necessary for the mouse paternal genome to participate in embryonic development. Biol. Reprod. 1999, 60, 702–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zheng, P.; Schramm, R.D.; Latham, K.E. Developmental regulation and in vitro culture effects on expression of DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoint control genes in rhesus monkey oocytes and embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2005, 72, 1359–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Marchetti, F.; Bishop, J.; Gingerich, J.; Wyrobek, A.J. Meiotic interstrand DNA damage escapes paternal repair and causes chromosomal aberrations in the zygote by maternal misrepair. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 7689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Menezo, Y.; Russo, G.; Tosti, E.; El Mouatassim, S.; Benkhalifa, M. Expression profile of genes coding for DNA repair in human oocytes using pangenomic microarrays, with a special focus on ROS linked decays. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007, 24, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jaroudi, S.; Kakourou, G.; Cawood, S.; Doshi, A.; Ranieri, D.M.; Serhal, P.; Harper, J.C.; SenGupta, S.B. Expression profiling of DNA repair genes in human oocytes and blastocysts using microarrays. Hum. Reprod. 2009, 24, 2649–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Martin, J.H.; Bromfield, E.G.; Aitken, R.J.; Lord, T.; Nixon, B. Double strand break DNA repair occurs via non-homologous end-joining in mouse MII oocytes. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. García-Rodríguez, A.; Gosálvez, J.; Agarwal, A.; Roy, R.; Johnston, S. DNA Damage and repair in human reproductive cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 20, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Pardoll, D.M.; Vogelstein, B.; Coffey, D.S. A fixed site of DNA replication in eucaryotic cells. Cell 1980, 19, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wilson, R.H.C.; Coverley, D. Relationship between DNA replication and the nuclear matrix. Genes Cells 2013, 18, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Tusell, L.; Latre, L.; Ponsa, I.; Miró, R.; Egozcue, J.; Genescà, A. Capping of radiation-induced DNA breaks in mouse early embryos. J. Radiat. Res. 2004, 45, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Adiga, S.K.; Toyoshima, M.; Shiraishi, K.; Shimura, T.; Takeda, J.; Taga, M.; Nagai, H.; Kumar, P.; Niwa, O. p21 provides stage specific DNA damage control to preimplantation embryos. Oncogene 2007, 26, 6141–6149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Toyoshima, M. Analysis of p53 dependent damage response in sperm-irradiated mouse embryos. J. Radiat. Res. 2009, 50, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kumar, D.; Upadhya, D.; Salian, S.R.; Rao, S.B.S.; Kalthur, G.; Kumar, P.; Adiga, S.K. The extent of paternal sperm DNA damage influences early post-natal survival of first generation mouse offspring. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 166, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Majzoub, A.; Agarwal, A. Antioxidant therapy in idiopathic oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. Indian J. Urol. 2017, 33, 207. [Google Scholar]
  92. Gharagozloo, P.; Aitken, R.J. The role of sperm oxidative stress in male infertility and the significance of oral antioxidant therapy. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 1628–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Menezo, Y.; Evenson, D.; Cohen, M.; Dale, B. Effect of Antioxidants on Sperm Genetic Damage. In Genetic Damage in Human Spermatozoa; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 791, pp. 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  94. Zini, A.; San Gabriel, M.; Baazeem, A. Antioxidants and sperm DNA damage: A clinical perspective. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2009, 26, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Rahman, S.; Huang, Y.; Zhu, L.; Feng, S.; Khan, I.; Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, X. therapeutic role of green tea polyphenols in improving fertility: A review. Nutrients 2018, 10, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Imamovic Kumalic, S.; Pinter, B. Review of clinical trials on effects of oral antioxidants on basic semen and other parameters in idiopathic oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. Biomed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Showell, M.G.; Mackenzie-Proctor, R.; Brown, J.; Yazdani, A.; Stankiewicz, M.T.; Hart, R.J. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, CD007411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Agarwal, A.; Durairajanayagam, D.; du Plessis, S.S. Utility of antioxidants during assisted reproductive techniques: An evidence based review. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2014, 12, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Greco, E.; Romano, S.; Iacobelli, M.; Ferrero, S.; Baroni, E.; Minasi, M.G.; Ubaldi, F.; Rienzi, L.; Tesarik, J. ICSI in cases of sperm DNA damage: Beneficial effect of oral antioxidant treatment. Hum. Reprod. 2005, 20, 2590–2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Tremellen, K.; Miari, G.; Froiland, D.; Thompson, J. A randomised control trial examining the effect of an antioxidant (Menevit) on pregnancy outcome during IVF-ICSI treatment. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007, 47, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Schmid, T.E.; Eskenazi, B.; Baumgartner, A.; Marchetti, F.; Young, S.; Weldon, R.; Anderson, D.; Wyrobek, A.J. The effects of male age on sperm DNA damage in healthy non-smokers. Hum. Reprod. 2006, 22, 180–187, Epub 19 October 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Meng, A.; Jiang, L. Induction of G2/M arrest by pseudolaric acid B is mediated by activation of the ATM signaling pathway. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2009, 30, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Sabisz, M.; Skladanowski, A. Modulation of cellular response to anticancer treatment by caffeine: inhibition of cell cycle checkpoints, DNA repair and more. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2008, 9, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Tsabar, M.; Eapen, V.V.; Mason, J.M.; Memisoglu, G.; Waterman, D.P.; Long, M.J.; Bishop, D.K.; Haber, J.E. Caffeine impairs resection during DNA break repair by reducing the levels of nucleases Sae2 and Dna2. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 6889–6901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Tsabar, M.; Mason, J.M.; Chan, Y.-L.; Bishop, D.K.; Haber, J.E. Caffeine inhibits gene conversion by displacing Rad51 from ssDNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 6902–6918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Bode, A.M.; Dong, Z. The enigmatic effects of caffeine in cell cycle and cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007, 247, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Moskovtsev, S.I.; Willis, J.; White, J.; Mullen, J.B.M. Disruption of telomere-telomere interactions associated with DNA damage in human spermatozoa. Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 2010, 56, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Roeder, G.S.; Bailis, J.M. The pachytene checkpoint. Trends Genet. 2000, 16, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tsubouchi, H.; Argunhan, B.; Tsubouchi, T. Exiting prophase I: No clear boundary. Curr. Genet. 2018, 64, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Genes 10 00105 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic structure of the sperm DNA compacted in protamines that form toroid structures (red) linked by MAR regions (matrix attachment regions) compacted in histones (blue) and attached to the nuclear matrix (green). (A) represents an intact chromatin. (B) represents chromatin with single-strand breaks (red lines). (C) represents chromatin with extensive double-strand breaks (red cross). (D) represents chromatin with localized double-strand breaks attached to the nuclear matrix (yellow circle).
Figure 1. Schematic structure of the sperm DNA compacted in protamines that form toroid structures (red) linked by MAR regions (matrix attachment regions) compacted in histones (blue) and attached to the nuclear matrix (green). (A) represents an intact chromatin. (B) represents chromatin with single-strand breaks (red lines). (C) represents chromatin with extensive double-strand breaks (red cross). (D) represents chromatin with localized double-strand breaks attached to the nuclear matrix (yellow circle).
Genes 10 00105 g001
Genes 10 00105 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Picture and scheme of neutral Comet with localized DSB (double-strand DNA breaks) attached to the nuclear matrix (green). Comet halo consists in non-fragmented chromatin and comet tail is formed by chromatin fibres attached to the nuclear matrix with low number of DNA breaks at the end (arrows). (B) Picture and scheme of neutral Comet with extensive DSB. Comet tail is formed by DNA fragments that are not attached to the nuclear matrix. This comet also shows part of localized DNA breaks attached to the MAR region (arrow).
Figure 2. (A) Picture and scheme of neutral Comet with localized DSB (double-strand DNA breaks) attached to the nuclear matrix (green). Comet halo consists in non-fragmented chromatin and comet tail is formed by chromatin fibres attached to the nuclear matrix with low number of DNA breaks at the end (arrows). (B) Picture and scheme of neutral Comet with extensive DSB. Comet tail is formed by DNA fragments that are not attached to the nuclear matrix. This comet also shows part of localized DNA breaks attached to the MAR region (arrow).
Genes 10 00105 g002
Table
Table 1. Techniques for the detection of different types of DNA damage.
Table 1. Techniques for the detection of different types of DNA damage.
TechniqueBasic PrincipleAdvantagesDisadvantagesType of DNA Damage DetectedClinical Effect
TUNELLabelling of 3′ free ends with a TdT transferase. Breaks are directly labelled.· Highly standardized protocol.· Need of flow cytometer for higher number of analysed cells.
· Sensitivity for the detection of DNA breaks in sperm cells.
· No detection of MAR-region attached DSB.		· Single-strand breaks.
· Extensive DSB.		· Pregnancy achievement.
SCSAAcid denaturation followed by staining with Acridine Orange. DNA with breaks is more susceptible to denaturating.· Standardized and fast protocol.
· Differentiation of immature sperm cells (HDS%).		· Need of flow cytometer.
· No detection of MAR-region attached DSB.		· Single-strand breaks.
· Extensive DSB.		· Pregnancy achievement.
SCDAcid denaturation, lysis of sperm membranes and extraction of protamines using detergent and salt. Non-fragmented sperm cells form a halo and fragmented sperm cells do not form halo (form a huge halo that cannot be seen at the optic microscope)· Highly standardized protocol.· Non-standardized analysis.
· Number of analysed sperm cells
· No detection of MAR-region attached DSB.		· Single-strand breaks.
· Extensive DSB.		· Pregnancy achievement.
Alkaline CometLysis of sperm membranes and extraction of protamines, alkaline denaturation and electrophoresis at alkaline pH. DNA breaks migrate towards cathode forming a DNA tail.· Differentiation of mostly single strand DNA breaks at 4 minutes of electrophoresis.
· Modulation: longer electrophoresis time may allow elucidating total DNA damage.
· Allow quantification of DNA breaks with specific software.		· Technique and analysis are not standardized between laboratories.
· No detection of MAR-region DSB.
· Studies comparing different electrophoresis times are needed.		· Mostly single-strand breaks (4 min. electrophoresis).
· Probably extensive DSB.		· Pregnancy achievement (4 min. electrophoresis time).
· Some studies related alkaline Comet to ICSI success using longer times of electrophoresis.
Neutral CometLysis of sperm membranes and extraction of protamines and electrophoresis at neutral pH. DNA breaks migrate towards cathode forming a DNA tail.· Differentiation of MAR-region specific DSB. · Technique and analysis are not standardized between laboratories.· MAR-region specific double strand breaks.
· Extensvie DSB.		· First trimester miscarriage risk.
· Risk of implantation failure in ICSI cycles.
· May be associated to slower embryo kinetics.
Two-tailed CometLysis of sperm membranes and extraction of protamines. First, neutral electrophoresis and, after alkaline denaturation and rotation of slide 90º, alkaline electrophoresis. Sperm present two DNA tails.· Detection of single and double strand DNA breaks in the same sperm cell.· Technique not standardized
· Difficult interpretation. Requires experienced observer.		· Single-strand breaks.
· Extensive DSB.
· Not known if MAR-region specific double strand breaks (lack of studies comparing to neutral Comet alone).		· Pregnancy achievement.
· Need of human clinical studies regarding ICSI.
HDS: High DNA Stainable sperm; TUNEL: Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labelling; SCSA: Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay; SCD: Sperm Chromatin Dispersion; ICSI: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ribas-Maynou, J.; Benet, J. Single and Double Strand Sperm DNA Damage: Different Reproductive Effects on Male Fertility. Genes 2019, 10, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020105

AMA Style

Ribas-Maynou J, Benet J. Single and Double Strand Sperm DNA Damage: Different Reproductive Effects on Male Fertility. Genes. 2019; 10(2):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020105

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ribas-Maynou, Jordi, and Jordi Benet. 2019. "Single and Double Strand Sperm DNA Damage: Different Reproductive Effects on Male Fertility" Genes 10, no. 2: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10020105

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop