4.7 Article

DNA fragmentation of normal spermatozoa negatively impacts embryo quality and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 549-557

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.050

关键词

Embryo quality; ICSI outcome; sperm DNA fragmentation; sperm morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate DNA fragmentation in morphologically normal sperm recovered from the same sample used for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and to correlate DNA damage with embryo quality and pregnancy outcome. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Academic center. Patient(s): 36 infertile men participating in the ICSI program. Intervention(s): Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate-fluorescein nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay and morphologic assessment by phase contrast. Main Outcome Measure(s): Simultaneous assessment of sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation by TUNEL assay was performed in the same cell, then the percentage of normal sperm with fragmented DNA (normal SFD) was correlated with embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes. Result(s): A highly statistically significant negative correlation was found between the percentage of normal SFD and embryo quality. This association was confirmed for the transferred embryos and for the total embryo cohort. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis demonstrated that the percentage of normal SFD and embryo quality were statistically significant predictors of pregnancy. When the percentage of normal SFD was <= 17.6 %, the likelihood of pregnancy was 3.5 times higher. No correlation was found between the percentage of total sperm with fragmented DNA (morphologically normal and abnormal) and ICSI outcomes. Conclusion(s): The DNA fragmentation of morphologically normal sperm negatively impacts embryo quality and probability of pregnancy in ICSI cycles. (Fertil Steril(R) 2010;94:549-57. (C) 2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据