Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: The sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) guides the clinician’s choice of an appropriate assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. The DFI can be determined using commercially available methodologies, including sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) kits and sperm chromatin structure ass...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: B, Vidya Laxme, Stephen, Silviya, Devaraj, Ramyashree, Mithraprabhu, Sridurga, Bertolla, Ricardo P., Mahendran, Tara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33227185
http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.03860
_version_ 1783618074142834688
author B, Vidya Laxme
Stephen, Silviya
Devaraj, Ramyashree
Mithraprabhu, Sridurga
Bertolla, Ricardo P.
Mahendran, Tara
author_facet B, Vidya Laxme
Stephen, Silviya
Devaraj, Ramyashree
Mithraprabhu, Sridurga
Bertolla, Ricardo P.
Mahendran, Tara
author_sort B, Vidya Laxme
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) guides the clinician’s choice of an appropriate assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. The DFI can be determined using commercially available methodologies, including sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) kits and sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Currently, when DFI is evaluated using SCD kits, the result is analyzed in reference to the SCSA-derived threshold for the choice of an ART procedure. In this study, we compared DFI values obtained using SCSA with those obtained using SCD and determined whether the difference affects the choice of ART procedure. METHODS: We compared SCSA to two SCD kits, CANfrag (n=36) and Halosperm (n=31), to assess the DFI values obtained, the correlations between tests, the technical repeatability, and the impact of DFI on the choice of ART. RESULTS: We obtained higher median DFI values using SCD kits than when using SCSA, and this difference was significant for the CANfrag kit (p<0.001). The SCD kits had significantly higher coefficients of variation than SCSA (p<0.001). In vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) would be chosen for a significantly higher proportion of patients if a decision were made based on DFI derived from SCD rather than DFI determined using SCSA (p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that SCD kit-specific thresholds should be established in order to avoid the unnecessary use of IVF/ICSI based on sperm DNA damage for the management of infertility. Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate the increased variability inherent to the methods used in these tests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7711102
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77111022020-12-09 Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure B, Vidya Laxme Stephen, Silviya Devaraj, Ramyashree Mithraprabhu, Sridurga Bertolla, Ricardo P. Mahendran, Tara Clin Exp Reprod Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: The sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) guides the clinician’s choice of an appropriate assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. The DFI can be determined using commercially available methodologies, including sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) kits and sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Currently, when DFI is evaluated using SCD kits, the result is analyzed in reference to the SCSA-derived threshold for the choice of an ART procedure. In this study, we compared DFI values obtained using SCSA with those obtained using SCD and determined whether the difference affects the choice of ART procedure. METHODS: We compared SCSA to two SCD kits, CANfrag (n=36) and Halosperm (n=31), to assess the DFI values obtained, the correlations between tests, the technical repeatability, and the impact of DFI on the choice of ART. RESULTS: We obtained higher median DFI values using SCD kits than when using SCSA, and this difference was significant for the CANfrag kit (p<0.001). The SCD kits had significantly higher coefficients of variation than SCSA (p<0.001). In vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) would be chosen for a significantly higher proportion of patients if a decision were made based on DFI derived from SCD rather than DFI determined using SCSA (p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that SCD kit-specific thresholds should be established in order to avoid the unnecessary use of IVF/ICSI based on sperm DNA damage for the management of infertility. Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate the increased variability inherent to the methods used in these tests. Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020-12 2020-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7711102/ /pubmed/33227185 http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.03860 Text en Copyright © 2020. THE KOREAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
B, Vidya Laxme
Stephen, Silviya
Devaraj, Ramyashree
Mithraprabhu, Sridurga
Bertolla, Ricardo P.
Mahendran, Tara
Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title_full Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title_fullStr Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title_full_unstemmed Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title_short Sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: Technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
title_sort sperm chromatin structure assay versus sperm chromatin dispersion kits: technical repeatability and choice of assisted reproductive technology procedure
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33227185
http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.03860
work_keys_str_mv AT bvidyalaxme spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure
AT stephensilviya spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure
AT devarajramyashree spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure
AT mithraprabhusridurga spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure
AT bertollaricardop spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure
AT mahendrantara spermchromatinstructureassayversusspermchromatindispersionkitstechnicalrepeatabilityandchoiceofassistedreproductivetechnologyprocedure