English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many studies have now confirmed that sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is associated with a poorer outcome of some forms of assisted reproduction technology. For this reason, SDF is an important parameter to evaluate in male fertility assessment. TUNEL (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling) assay coupled to flow cytometry is one of the most promising methods for SDF quantification. Several kits for the detection of DNA fragmentation are currently available on the market and all are recommended as equally appropriate to quantify SDF. In this work we compared for the first time the efficacy of two different types of TUNEL kits for SDF quantification: one using an indirect antibody-based labeling system (BrdUTP/fluorescein-anti-BrdUTP) and another using a direct labeling system (fluorescein-dUTP). We demonstrated that TUNEL indirect labeling system largely underestimates SDF when compared with the direct labeling, the differences ranging from 19.2% to 85.3% (p<0.05, n = 22). We observed that these differences were most pronounced among dead spermatozoa where indirect labeling stained 40.1% [23.6%, 58.2%] and the direct system 65.7% [36.5%, 90.9%] (n = 10, p<0.05). Interestingly, we found that both systems stained the living spermatozoa with the same efficiency. We showed that the differences are due to the steric hindrance of the antibody during its binding to the BrdUTP. Indeed, after sperm DNA decondensation, the percentages of TUNEL positivity increased significantly from 46.3% [31.8%, 61.7%] to 97.5% [96.1%, 98.8%] (p<0.05, n = 5). Our results are important for future use of TUNEL in clinical practice. Laboratories relying on the use of an antibody-based system heavily underestimate SDF, most particularly in infertile patients with reduced sperm motility. As a consequence, the kit using BrdUTP/fluorescein-anti-BrdUTP should not be recommended as a method to assay DNA damage in semen. This study represents one further step in the standardization of TUNEL among laboratories.

TUNEL labeling with BrdUTP/anti-BrdUTP greatly underestimates the level of sperm DNA fragmentation in semen evaluation