Premium
The semen microbiome and its impact on sperm function and male fertility: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Farahani Linda,
Tharakan Tharu,
Yap Tet,
Ramsay Jonathan W.,
Jayasena Chan.,
Minhas Suks
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
andrology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.947
H-Index - 43
eISSN - 2047-2927
pISSN - 2047-2919
DOI - 10.1111/andr.12886
Subject(s) - semen , biology , sperm , semen analysis , male infertility , fertility , sperm motility , microbiome , ureaplasma , andrology , infertility , semen quality , physiology , mycoplasma , gynecology , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , bioinformatics , genetics , population , pregnancy , environmental health
Abstract Background Male factor is attributable in up to 50% of cases of infertility. In vitro studies demonstrate that bacteria can negatively impact sperm function. The use of next‐generation sequencing techniques has provided a better understanding of the human microbiome, and dysbiosis has been reported to impact health. Evidence regarding the impact of the semen microbiome on sperm function and fertility remains conflicting. Materials and methods A systematic search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) statement. The databases MEDLINE, OVID and PubMed were searched to identify English language studies related to the identification of bacteria in the semen of infertile and fertile men, between 1992 and 2019. Fifty‐five observational studies were included, with 51 299 subjects. We included studies identifying bacteria using next‐generation sequencing, culture or polymerase chain reaction. Results The semen microbiome was rich and diverse in both fertile and infertile men. Three NGS studies reported clustering of the seminal microbiome with a predominant species. Lactobacillus and Prevotella were dominant in respective clusters. Lactobacillus was associated with improvements in semen parameters. Prevotella appeared to exert a negative effect on sperm quality. Bacteriospermia negatively impacted sperm concentration and progressive motility, and DNA fragmentation index (DFI; MD: 3.518, 95% CI: 0.907 to 6.129, P = .008). There was an increased prevalence of ureaplasma urealyticum in infertile men (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.47‐3.46). Ureaplasma urealyticum negatively impacted concentration and morphology. There was no difference in the prevalence of chlamydia trachomatis between fertile and infertile men and no significant impact on semen parameters. Enterococcus faecalis negatively impacted total motility, and Mycoplasma hominis negatively impacted concentration, PM and morphology. Discussion and conclusions Ureaplasma urealyticum, Enterococcus faecalis, Mycoplasma hominis and Prevotella negatively impact semen parameters, whereas Lactobacillus appears to protect sperm quality. These findings may facilitate the development of novel therapies (eg probiotics), although the evidence regarding the impact of the seminal microbiome on fertility is inconclusive and further studies are needed to investigate this association.