Criteria for predicting male fertility potential

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

PDF (Українська)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2(57).2016.82970

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

О. Д. Нікітін
Національний медичний університет імені О.О. Богомольця, м. Київ, Ukraine
І. С. Чорнокульский
Національний медичний університет імені О.О. Богомольця, м. Київ, Ukraine

Abstract

In the modern development of reproductive technologies sperm DNA integrity the main indicator of potential fertility of male as the application procedures intracytoplasmic injection of sperm fertilization can be achieved with the lost function of flagella or acrosome. The objective: study criteria for predicting male infertility and establish their sensitivity and specificity. Patients and methods. To define the criteria for predicting male fertility potential, establishing their sensitivity and specificity studied 40 samples of seminal fluid were taken from 35 patients. 25 of these samples were directly involved in ART cycles, and the other 15 samples appeared to last before the registration of chemical pregnancy partner of the patient that emerged naturally (provided that between the last semen and the registration XB was not more than three weeks) . The control group included 62 semen samples taken from 31 healthy donors. Results. A statistically significant difference observed between the average values of the following indicators: volume of ejaculate, total sperm count rates, the percentage of progressive aktyvnoruhlyvyh forms (cat.) To form a flagellum and pathology percentage of DNA fragmentation. Average values of other indicators statistically significant difference had. Almost twice differ average total sperm count, the proportion prohresive motility forms (Cat. A) and sperm with DNA fragmentation. The total number of sperm in an average – 117,12±54,29 mln. In group A compared to 31,00% (17–63%) in group B, p<0,05. Conclusion. The most sensitive indicators of potential male fertility were the following: DNA fragmentation spermal (Se=0,94), the percentage of live sperm forms (Se=0,71) and the total number of sperm in the ejaculate (Se=0,69). Quite sensitive indicator was the percentage of progressive motility (a+b) of spermatozoa (Se=0,56), and the least sensitive – the percentage of the total number of mobile forms (a+b+c) of sperm in the ejaculate (Se=0,19). As in all investigated samples of ejaculate number of morphologically normal forms was more than 4% (the lower limit of the percentage of normal forms of sperm in the ejaculate for the latest version WHO), the normal morphology of sperm appeared to be no sensitive (Se=0). Regarding specificity potentials male fertility, here in the first place (unless you consider morphology) – percentage of the total number of mobile forms (a+b+c) of sperm in the ejaculate (Sp=0,92). Next, in descending order, figures the total number of sperm in the ejaculate (Sp=0,83), the percentage of progressively motile (a+b) form (Sp=0,79) and DNA fragmentation (Sp=0,75). Lowest in its specificity was the percentage of living (Sp=0,44) form sperm.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Нікітін, О. Д., & Чорнокульский, І. С. (2016). Criteria for predicting male fertility potential. Health of Man, (2(57), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2(57).2016.82970
Issue
No. 2(57) (2016)
Section
Sexology and andrology
Copyright (c) 2020 О. Д. Нікітін, І. С. Чорнокульский

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the first publication of original scientific articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to distribute work with acknowledgment of authorship and first publication in this journal.

Author Biographies

О. Д. Нікітін, Національний медичний університет імені О.О. Богомольця, м. Київ

Никитин Олег Дмитриевич

І. С. Чорнокульский, Національний медичний університет імені О.О. Богомольця, м. Київ

Чернокульский Игорь Сергеевич

References

Markova E.V., Zamaj A.S. Fragmentacija DNK v spermatozoidah cheloveka (obzor literatury) // Problemy reprodukcii. – 2006. – № 4. – S. 14–20.

Juz'ko O.M., Zhilka N.Ja., Rudenko N.G., Al'oshina G.M., Juz'ko T.A. Dopomizhni reproduktivni tehnologii' v Ukrai'ni // Reproduktivna medicina. – 2012. – № 3. – S. 15–19.

Agarwal A., Nallella K., Allamaneni S., Said T. Role of antioxidants in treatment of male infertility: an overview of the literature // Reprod Biomed Online. – 2004. – № 8 (6). – P. 616–627.

Ahmadi A., Ng S. Fertilizing ability of DNA-damaged spermatozoa // J Exp. Zool. – 1999. – № 284. – P. 696–704.

Baker M., Aitken R. Reactive oxygen species in spermatozoa: methods for monitoring and significance for the origins of genetic disease and infertility //Reprod Biol Endocrinol. – 2005. – № 3 (67). – P. 1477–7827.

Carrel D., Liu L., Peterson C., Jones K., Hatasaka H., Ericson L. et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation is increased in couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss // Arch. Androl. – 2003. – № 49. – P. 49–55.

Erenpreiss J., Spano M. et al.Sperm chromatin structure and male fertility: biological and clinical aspects // Asian J Androl. – 2006. – № 8 (1). – P. 11–29.

Greco E., Iacobelli M., Rienzi L., Ubaldi F., Ferrero S., Tesarik J. Reduction of the Incidence of Sperm DNA Fragmentation by Oral Antioxidant Treatment // J Androl. – 2005. – № 26 (3). – P. 349–353.

Guzick D., Overstreet J., FactorLitvak P. et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in infertile and fertile men //N Engl J Med. – 2001. – № 345. – P. 1388–1393.

Nicopoullos J., Gilling-Smith C., Almeida P., Homa S., NormanTaylor J., Ramsay J. Sperm DNA fragmentation in subfertile men: the effect on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and correlation with sperm variables. // BJU International. – 2008. – № 101 (12). – P. 1553–1560.