Development of treatment strategies in men with vulnerable sperm

The Effect of Glyphosate on Human Sperm Motility and Sperm DNA Fragmentation

Glyphosate is the active ingredient of Roundup®, which is one of the most popular herbicides worldwide. Although many studies have focused on the reproductive toxicity of glyphosate or glyphosate-based herbicides, the majority of them have concluded that the effect of the specific herbicide is negligible, while only a few studies indicate the male reproductive toxicity of glyphosate alone. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of 0.36 mg/L glyphosate on sperm motility and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF). Thirty healthy men volunteered to undergo semen analysis for the purpose of the study. Sperm motility was calculated according to WHO 2010 guidelines at collection time (zero time) and 1 h post-treatment with glyphosate. Sperm DNA fragmentation was evaluated with Halosperm® G2 kit for both the control and glyphosate-treated sperm samples. Sperm progressive motility of glyphosate-treated samples was significantly reduced after 1 h post-treatment in comparison to the respective controls, in contrast to the SDF of glyphosate-treated samples, which was comparable to the respective controls. Conclusively, under these in vitro conditions, at high concentrations that greatly exceed environmental exposures, glyphosate exerts toxic effects on sperm progressive motility but not on sperm DNA integrity, meaning that the toxic effect is limited only to motility, at least in the first hour.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.