Original Articles
 

By Ms. Penelope Wakefield , Ms. Elaine Murray , Ms. Natalie Moska , Dr. Phillip Matson
Corresponding Author Dr. Phillip Matson
Hollywood Fertility Centre, Hollywood Private Hospital, Monash Avenue - Australia WA 6009
Submitting Author Dr. Phillip L Matson
Other Authors Ms. Penelope Wakefield
Hollywood Fertility Centre, Hollywood Private Hospital, Monash Avenue, Nedlands - Australia WA 6009

Ms. Elaine Murray
Hollywood Fertility Centre, Hollywood Private Hospital, Monash Avenue, Nedlands - Australia WA 6009

Ms. Natalie Moska
Hollywood Fertility Centre, Hollywood Private Hospital, Monash Avenue, Nedlands - Australia WA 6009

REPRODUCTION

Human sperm, Chromatin, Variability

Wakefield P, Murray E, Moska N, Matson P. A Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (scsa): Background Snalysis Of Azoospermic Semen, Validity Of Snap Freezing Semen Prior To Assay, And The Between-ejaculate Variability Seen With Donors. WebmedCentral REPRODUCTION 2010;1(10):WMC00885
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2010.00885
No
Submitted on: 05 Oct 2010 02:51:40 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Oct 2010 07:41:35 PM GMT

Abstract


The sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) was applied to human sperm, and factors affecting its routine operation investigated. The findings indicated that(a) non-sperm cells in semen can contribute to the results of the SCSA, (b) snap freezing in liquid nitrogen does not affect the result of the SCSA and is a good way of storing semen prior to testing, (c) there is good reproducibility when snap freezing several straws suggesting that they remain representative of the original sample, (d) two donors produced semen samples over many weeks which invariably gave the same clinical information, and (e) there was a significant correlation between the DNA fragmentation index and the number of sperm in the ejaculate.

Introduction


The sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) is a diagnostic test that indicates the degree of DNA fragmentation by denaturing sperm DNA at the sites of DNA breaks [6]. The SCSA is gaining popularity in specialist andrology laboratories and appears to provide useful information on the probability of continued embryonic development and the establishment of pregnancy after fertilization [2], and yet the recent WHO manual [15] still regards the SCSA as a “research procedure”. As with any other diagnostic test, validation of the assay is important [9] and some technical and biological factors that affect the results obtained with the SCSA have been examined previously [1, 4]. The present study aimed to develop further an understanding of the SCSA applied to human sperm under routine conditions by (a) assessing the contribution of non-sperm samples by performing the SCSA on semen from a vasectomised man, (b) investigating the validity of storing samples prior to assay, and (c) describing the biological variability seen when two donors produced weekly semen samples over a 10 week period.

Methods


All semen was collected by masturbation and analysed within 1 hr for volume, sperm concentration, morphology and motility [15]. Semen samples were collected and processed for the different parts of the study as follows:

1.  Post- vasectomy semen. A semen sample from a vasectomised man was processed and analysed within 2 hours of production without freezing.

2. Validation of snap freezing. Five men, whose partner had failed to conceive after 12 months and were undergoing fertility investigations, produced samples with 2-5 days sexual abstinence. The SCSA was performed on an aliquot of fresh semen within 1 hour of production. An aliquot of the semen was also loaded in to 0.3ml CBS™ High Security straws, snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and then thawed for assay in the same batch as the fresh semen.

3.  Replicate straws. Semen was produced after 3 days sexual abstinence by a patient with a known elevated DFI, snap frozen within 1 hour in ten 0.3ml CBS™ High Security straws, and stored in liquid nitrogen for subsequent batch analysis with the SCSA of all the straws.

4. Biological variability of donors. Two sperm donors produced semen once per week for 10 consecutive weeks with no restriction on their sexual activity. Aliquots of semen were snap frozen and analysed subsequently with the SCSA in a single batch to minimize between-assay variability.

Frozen samples were thawed at 37°C for 30 secs and placed in an ice bath for 5 mins before running through the SCSA, whilst fresh semen was simply placed directly in the ice bath for 5 mins before performing the SCSA. The SCSA sperm preparation was performed as described previously [5], with the stained sperm analysed using a Becton Dickinson FACSCalibur flow cytometer and BD CellQuest™ Pro acquisition and analysis software (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA). A total of 5,000 sperm were counted each time after staining with acridine orange (Cat no. A3568; Invitrogen Australia Pty Ltd, Mulgrave, Victoria 3170, Australia). Acridine orange has a 488nm excitation wavelength with green emission collected using a 530/30nm band pass filter and red emission collected with a 670 nm long pass filter.

 The results were plotted on a graph with the ordinate axis being the single stranded DNA staining, and the abscissa being the double stranded DNA staining. The plot was divided in to the following regions as shown in Illustration 1:

a)      Region 1 (R1) – the complete population of sperm being the sum of R2, R3 and R4,

b)      Region 2 (R2) – the normal population of sperm with an acceptably low amount of single stranded DNA,

c)      Region 3 (R3) – the population of sperm with an unacceptable amount of fragmented or single stranded DNA. This equates to the COMP?t described previously [5], and the ratio of R3:R1 as a percentage is termed the DNA fragmentation index (DFI), and

d)     Region 4 (R4) – the population of sperm exhibiting a high amount of staining associated with double stranded DNA. The ratio of R4:R1 as a percentage is termed the high DNA stainability (HDS).

Results


A semen sample from a vasectomised man was analysed with the SCSA, and gave a DFI of 69.3% and an HDS of 26.5%, confirming that non-sperm cells are detected by this method.

 Plunging semen into liquid nitrogen and analysing after thawing gave a DFI (8.8% ± 2.2%) that was similar to the corresponding fresh sample (8.2% ± 2.1%), showing an excellent correlation between the fresh and frozen semen (r=0.977, p

 The two donors collecting over a 10 week period always gave samples with DFI results in the normal range (2.3%-7.0% and 3.4%-7.0%). However, the results seemed linked to the semen quality as there was a significant correlation between the DFI and the total number of sperm in the ejaculate for both donors as shown in Illustration 2.

Discussion


Analysis of a semen sample from a vasectomised man showed clearly that cells other than sperm can be detected by the SCSA. Cells that stain with acridine orange following acid denaturation include lymphocytes [3] which are present in semen albeit in very  low numbers [8]. Presumably, the contribution of these occasional cells to the DFI calculation will be most significant in severely oligozoospermic samples.

 The running of the SCSA using a flow cytometer requires many quality checks and can be time consuming and costly to start-up and run each day. Depending upon the number of samples received by the laboratory, it may prove more efficient to batch analyse samples or send them elsewhere for analysis. Based upon previous reports showing the stability of DNA when frozen [11, 14], two strategies can be seen to be in operation in clinics namely (a)  stockpiling samples for batch analysis by either snap freezing semen in liquid nitrogen [13], cooling in nitrogen vapour [1], and freezing at -80°C, or (b) the storage of samples on dry ice for shipment to a central laboratory with [7] or without [10] cryoprotectant. Interestingly, calibration samples have been frozen immediately at -100°C by some workers but who used cryoprotectant in their clinical samples [7]. The current study has confirmed that the snap freezing of sperm in liquid nitrogen does not affect the DFI as measured with the SCSA, and that the reproducibility of results when frozen in a number of straws shows that each straw remains representative of the original sample.

 The present study showed good reproducibility by the two donors. The reproducibility of results from donors followed for 8 months has been reported previously [7], with individual donors showing remarkable consistency. However, it should be acknowledged that changes in the health of a man, e.g. alterations in accessory gland function [12], can change things. An interesting finding in the present study was the positive correlation with total sperm content of the ejaculate (Illustration 2). Given that abstinence is a major factor in influencing semen quality of any individual man, and that the two donors in this study had no restrictions on sexual activity, it is feasible that the two parameters (sperm numbers and DFI) were both influenced by the same variable, namely sexual abstinence.  A positive correlation between the DFI and abstinence has been reported elsewhere [12].

 It can be concluded that (a) non-sperm cells in semen can contribute to the results of the SCSA, (b) snap freezing in liquid nitrogen does not affect the result of the SCSA and is a good way of storing semen prior to testing, (c) there is good reproducibility when snap freezing several straws suggesting that they remain representative of the original sample, (d) two donors produced semen samples over many weeks which invariably gave the same clinical information, and (e) there was a significant correlation between the DNA fragmentation index and the number of sperm in the ejaculate.

Reference(s)


1.Boe-Hansen G, Ersbøll A, Christensen P. Variability and laboratory factors affecting the sperm chromatin structure assay in human semen. J Androl 2005; 26: 360-368.
2.D'Occhio M, Hengstberger K, Johnston S. Biology of sperm chromatin structure and relationship to male fertility and embryonic survival. Anim Reprod Sci 2007; 101: 1-17.
3.Darzynkiewicz Z, Traganos F, Andreef M, Sharpless T, Melamed M. Different sensitivity of chromatin to acid denaturation in quiescent and cycling cells as revealed by flow cytometry. J Histochem Cytochem 1979; 27: 478-485.
4.Erenpreiss J, Bungum M, Spano M, Elzanaty S, Orbidans J, Giwercman A. Intra-individual variation in sperm chromatin structure assay parameters in men from infertile couples: clinical implications. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2061-2064.
5.Evenson D, Jost L. Sperm chromatin structure assay is useful for fertility assessment. Method Cell Sci 2000; 22: 169-189.
6.Evenson D, Wixon R. Clinical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation detection and male infertility. Theriogenology 2006; 65: 979-991.
7.Evenson D, Jost L, Baer R, Turner T, Schrader S. Individuality of DNA denaturation patterns in human sperm as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Toxicol 1991; 5: 115-125.
8.Gil T, Castilla J, Hortas M, Redondo M, Samaniego F, Garrida F, Vergara F, Herruzo A. Increase of large granular lymphocytes in human ejaculate containing antisperm antibodies. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 296-301.
9.Matson P. Clinical value of tests for assessing male infertility. Bailliere Clin Ob Gy 1997; 11: 641-654.
10.Nicopoullos J, Gilling-Smith C, Almeida P, Homa S, Norman-Taylor J, Ramsay J. Sperm DNA fragmentation in subfertile men: the effect on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and correlation with sperm variables. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1553-1560.
11.Ohsako S, Nagano R, Sugimoto Y, Goto K. Comparison of the nuclear DNA stability against freezing-thawing and high temperature treatments between spermatozoa and somatic cells. J Vet Med Sci 1997; 59: 1085-1088.
12.Richthoff J, Spano M, Giwercman Y, Frohm B, Jepson K, Malm J, Elzanaty S, Stridsberg M, Giwercman A. The impact of testicular and accessory gland function on sperm chromatin integrity as assessed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3162-3169.
13.Rybar R, Markova P, Veznik Z, Faldikova L, Kunetkova M, Zajicova A, Kopecka V, Rubes J. Sperm chromatin integrity in young men with no experiences of infertility and men from idiopathic infertility couples. Andrologia 2009; 41: 141-149.
14.Shikama K. Effect of freezing and thawing on the stability of double helix of DNA. Nature 1965; 207: 445-558.
15.WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.

Source(s) of Funding


Hollywood Fertility Centre

Competing Interests


Nothing to declare.

Disclaimer


This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

Reviews
1 review posted so far

A sperm chromatin structural assay(SCSA):...
Posted by Dr. Nasr Esfahani MH on 12 Mar 2011 02:42:26 PM GMT

Comments
0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.

 

Author Comments
0 comments posted so far

 

What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
Where
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)