2019 EFFECT OF MICROSURGICAL VARICOCELECTOMY ON HUMAN SPERM DNA INTEGRITY AND CHROMATIN COMPACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Physiology, Pathophysiology, Basic Research1 Apr 20112019 EFFECT OF MICROSURGICAL VARICOCELECTOMY ON HUMAN SPERM DNA INTEGRITY AND CHROMATIN COMPACTION Naif Alhathal, Maria San Gabriel, and Armand Zini Naif AlhathalNaif Alhathal Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Maria San GabrielMaria San Gabriel Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Armand ZiniArmand Zini Montreal, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2247AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Human sperm DNA damage may adversely affect reproductive outcomes, and the spermatozoa of infertile men possess substantially more DNA damage than that of fertile men. Further to our previous study on the effect of varicocelectomy on sperm DNA integrity (DFI= DNA fragmentation index) using sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), the objective of this study was to further assess human sperm chromatin integrity before and after varicocelectomy by evaluating aniline blue staining (AB) in these samples. METHODS We evaluated 20 men who underwent microsurgical varicocelectomy for clinical varicocele and 6 controls (sperm donors) at our institution. We examined standard semen parameters, sperm DNA integrity (by SCSA) and chromatin integrity (by aniline blue stain) before and after varicocelectomy and for the control group. RESULTS The percentage of sperm with positive AB staining (histone retention) decreased significantly after surgery (from 13.5 to 5.4%). The %DFI (DNA fragmentation index) also decreased significantly (as previously shown). However, there were no significant relationship between AB staining and %DFI, motility or concentration. The only notable relationship was between AB staining and HDS (high DNA stainability–an index of chromatin compaction) post varicocelectomy. Furthermore, the percentage of sperm with positive AB staining was significantly less in the control compared to varicocele patients before surgery (2.5% vs 13.5%). The %DFI also was significantly less in the control group (7% vs 20%). CONCLUSIONS The data show that varicocelectomy is associated with a consistent improvement in sperm DNA integrity and chromatin compaction using two different assays of sperm chromatin integrity (SCSA, Aniline Blue). However, the poor relationship between SCSA parameters (e.g. %DFI) and AB staining suggests that these assays measure different aspects of sperm function. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e807 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Naif Alhathal Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Maria San Gabriel Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Armand Zini Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".