Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Comparing the Roles of Sperm Chromatin Integrity and Apoptosis in Intrauterine Insemination Outcomes of Couples with Mild Male and Female Factor Infertility

Authors
Mohammad Ali Khalili 1
Saeedeh Nazari 1
Razieh Dehghani-Firouzabadi 1
Alireza Talebi 1
Shekofeh Baghazadeh-Naeini 2
Fatemeh Sadeghian-Nodoshan 1
Azam Agha-Rahimi 1
1 Infertility Research and Clinical Center, Shahid Sadoughi Medical Sciences University, Yazd, Iran
2 Infertility Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the therapeutic approaches for infertility. The objective of this study was to evaluate DNA integrity and apoptosis role in success of IUI in both mild male and female factor infertility. Methods: Patients were divided into two groups: M (mild male factor; n=29) and F (female factor; n=31) undergoing single IUI. Ejaculates were analyzed and chromatin quality was assessed using chromomycin A3 (CMA3) staining. In addition, spermatozoal apoptosis was recognized using TUNEL assay. Statistical analyses were done using t-test and Mann Whitney test for sperm apoptosis and sperm chromatin by SPSS. Data were expressed in mean ± SD for variables. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Sperm concentration and progressive motility were higher in F than M group. Sperm with normal morphology were statistically similar in M and F infertile patients (32.7±15.6% vs. 35.5±9.07%, p=0.39). Sperm chromatin immaturity was higher in patients with mild male infertility, when compared with the other group (p < 0.01). Also, 32.0±5.6% and 30.8±6.1% of the spermatozoa showed signs of apoptosis in groups M and F, respectively (p=0.49). Very low (3.4%) clinical pregnancy rates were noticed in patients with mild male factor infertility Conclusion: Defect in sperm motility as well as high rates of DNA damage and apoptosis may be involved with very low rate of pregnancy outcomes in patients with mild male factor infertility. Therefore, it seems the application of IUI may have better outcomes in patients with female infertility compared to mild male factor infertility.
Keywords
Apoptosis
Infertility
Intrauterine transfusion
Male
morphology
sperm motility
Spermatozoa
  1. Lachaud C, Tesarik J, Canadas ML, Mendoza C. Apoptosis and necrosis in human ejaculated spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):607-10.
  2. Custers IM, Steures P, Hompes P, Flierman P, van Kasteren Y, van Dop PA, et al. Intrauterine insemination: how many cycles should we perform?. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(4):885-8.
  3. Kamath MS, Bhave P, Aleyamma T, Nair R, Chandy A, Mangalaraj AM, et al. Predictive factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination: A prospective study of factors affecting outcome. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2010;3(3):129-34.
  4. Lucchini C, Volpe E, Tocci A. Comparison of intrafollicular sperm injection and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of subfertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(10):1103-9.
  5. Jayaraman V, Upadhya D, Narayan PK, Adiga SK. Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(6):557-63.
  6. El-Melegy NT, Ali ME. Apoptotic markers in semen of infertile men: Association with cigarette smoking. Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37(4):495-506.
  7. Taylor SL, Weng SL, Fox P, Duran EH, Morshedi MS, Oehninger S, et al. Somatic cell apoptosis markers and pathways in human ejaculated sperm: potential utility as indicators of sperm quality. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(11):825-34.
  8. Jurisicova A, Lopes S, Meriano J, Oppedisano L, Casper RF, Varmuza S. DNA damage in round spermatids of mice with a targeted disruption of the Pp1cgamma gene and in testicular biopsies of patients with non-obstructive azoospermia. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5(4):323-30.
  9. Aziz N, Said T, Paasch U, Agarwal A. The relationship between human sperm apoptosis, morphology and the sperm deformity index. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1413-9.
  10. Angelopoulou R, Plastira K, Msaouel P. Spermatozoal sensitive biomarkers to defective protaminosis and fragmented DNA. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:36.
  11. Nasr-Esfahani MH, Aboutorabi R, Razavi S. Credibility of chromomycin A3 staining in prediction of fertility. Int J Fertil Steril. 2009;9:5-10.
  12. Tarozzi N, Nadalini M, Stronati A, Bizzaro D, Dal Prato L, Coticchio G, et al. Anomalies in sperm chromatin packaging: implications for assisted reproduction techniques. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(4):486-95.
  13. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980;210(4474):1131-3.
  14. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 2010.
  15. Talebi AR, Moein MR, Tabibnejad N, Ghasemzadeh J. Effect of varicocele on chromatin condensation and DNA integrity of ejaculated spermatozoa using cytochemical tests. Andrologia. 2008;40(4):245-51.
  16. Kupker W, Schulze W, Diedrich K. Ultrastructure of gametes and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the significance of sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 1998;13 Suppl 1:99-106.
  17. Dorjpurev U, Kuwahara A, Yano Y, Taniguchi T, Yamamoto Y, Suto A, et al. Effect of semen characteristics on pregnancy rate following intrauterine insemination. J Med Invest. 2011;58(1-2):127-33.
  18. Abdelkader AM, Yeh J. The potential use of intrauterine insemination as a basic option for infertility: a review for technology-limited medical settings. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009;2009:584837.
  19. Van Voorhis BJ, Barnett M, Sparks AE, Syrop CH, Rosenthal G, Dawson J. Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(4):661-8.
  20. Lee RK, Hou JW, Ho HY, Hwu YM, Lin MH, Tsai YC, et al. Sperm morphology analysis using strict criteria as a prognostic factor in intrauterine insemination. Int J Androl. 2002;25(5):277-80.
  21. Agarwal A, Said TM. Role of sperm chromatin abnormalities and DNA damage in male infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(4):331-45.
  22. Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Sharma RK, Said TM, Sikka SC, Thomas AJ Jr. Evaluation of nuclear DNA damage in spermatozoa from infertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(6):1431-6.
  23. Bungum M, Bungum L, Humaidan P, Yding Andersen C. Day 3 versus day 5 embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(1):98-104.
  24. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Spano M, Jepson K, Bungum L, Giwercman A. The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(6):1401-8.
  25. Giwercman A, Richthoff J, Hjollund H, Bonde JP, Jepson K, Frohm B, et al. Correlation between sperm motility and sperm chromatin structure assay parameters. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(6):1404-12.
  26. Ahinko-Hakamaa K, Huhtala H, Tinkanen H. Success in intrauterine insemination: the role of etiology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(7): 855-60.
  27. Zadehmodarres S, Oladi B, Saeedi S, Jahed F, Ashraf H. Intrauterine insemination with husband semen: an evaluation of pregnancy rate and factors affecting outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(1):7-11.
  28. Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tomas C, Bloigu R, Tuomivaara L, Martikainen H. Intrauterine insemination treatment in subfertility: an analysis of factors affecting outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(3):698-703.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 15, Issue 1
Winter 2014
Pages 35-40