Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May 14:13:42.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0035-y.

The relationship between sperm viability and DNA fragmentation rates

Affiliations

The relationship between sperm viability and DNA fragmentation rates

Mary K Samplaski et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. .

Abstract

Background: In humans, sperm DNA fragmentation rates have been correlated with sperm viability rates. Reduced sperm viability is associated with high sperm DNA fragmentation, while conversely high sperm viability is associated with low rates of sperm DNA fragmentation. Both elevated DNA fragmentation rates and poor viability are correlated with impaired male fertility, with a DNA fragmentation rate of >30% indicating subfertility. We postulated that in some men, the sperm viability assay could predict the sperm DNA fragmentation rates. This in turn could reduce the need for sperm DNA fragmentation assay testing, simplifying the infertility investigation and saving money for infertile couples.

Methods: All men having semen analyses with both viability and DNA fragmentation testing were identified via a prospectively collected database. Viability was measured by eosin-nigrosin assay. DNA fragmentation was measured using the sperm chromosome structure assay. The relationship between DNA fragmentation and viability was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

Results: From 2008-2013, 3049 semen analyses had both viability and DNA fragmentation testing. A strong inverse relationship was seen between sperm viability and DNA fragmentation rates, with r=-0.83. If viability was ≤50% (n=301) then DNA fragmentation was ≥ 30% for 95% of the samples. If viability was ≥75% (n=1736), then the DNA fragmentation was ≤30% for 95% of the patients. Sperm viability correlates strongly with DNA fragmentation rates.

Conclusions: In men with high levels of sperm viability≥75%, or low levels of sperm viability≤ 30%, DFI testing may be not be routinely necessary. Given that DNA fragmentation testing is substantially more expensive than vitality testing, this may represent a valuable cost-saving measure for couples undergoing a fertility evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sperm DNA fragmentation versus necrospermia. A strong inverse relationship (p < 0.001) was seen between viability and DNA fragmentation. If viability was ≥ 75%, then the DNA fragmentation was < 30% for 95% of the patients. If viability was ≤ 50% then DNA fragmentation was ≥ 30% for 95% of the samples.

References

    1. Irvine DS, Macleod IC, Templeton AA, Masterton A, Taylor A. A prospective clinical study of the relationship between the computer-assisted assessment of human semen quality and the achievement of pregnancy in vivo. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(12):2324–34. - PubMed
    1. Shen HM, Dai J, Chia SE, Lim A, Ong CN. Detection of apoptotic alterations in sperm in subfertile patients and their correlations with sperm quality. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1266–73. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.5.1266. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barroso G, Morshedi M, Oehninger S. Analysis of DNA fragmentation, plasma membrane translocation of phosphatidylserine and oxidative stress in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(6):1338–44. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.6.1338. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gandini L, Lombardo F, Paoli D, Caponecchia L, Familiari G, Verlengia C, et al. Study of apoptotic DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):830–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.4.830. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brahem S, Jellad S, Ibala S, Saad A, Mehdi M. DNA fragmentation status in patients with necrozoospermia. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2012;58(6):319–23. doi: 10.3109/19396368.2012.710869. - DOI - PubMed