DNA Integrity Is Compromised in Protamine‐Deficient Human Sperm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between DNA integrity and protamines in human sperm. One hundred forty-nine male infertility patients were included in an Institutional Review Board-approved study. Sperm were evaluated for DNA fragmentation using the DNA Integrity Assay, a test equivalent to the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Additionally, nuclear proteins were extracted and the protamine-1/protamine-2 ratio (P1/P2), protamine-1 (P1), protamine-2 (P2), and total protamine concentrations were evaluated. We identified 37 patients with abnormally low P1/P2 ratios, 99 patients with normal P1/P2 ratios, and 13 patients with abnormally high P1/P2 ratios. DNA fragmentation was significantly elevated in patients with low P1/P2 ratios (37.1 +/- 6.02) vs those with normal and high P1/P2 ratios (26.7 +/- 1.9 and 23.8 +/- 3.2, respectively; P < .05) and was inversely correlated with the P1/P2 ratio (R(s) -0.18, P < .05), P1 concentration (R(s) -0.29, P < .001), P2 concentration (R(s) - 0.24, P < .005), and total protamine concentration (R(s) -0.28, P < .001). Furthermore, chi2 analysis revealed a significant increase in the incidence of marked DNA fragmentation in patients with diminished levels of either P1 or P2. The present study is the first to report that human sperm protamine content is significantly related to DNA fragmentation. In particular, sperm P1 and P2 concentrations inversely correlate with DNA fragmentation, indicating a protective role of the protamines against sperm DNA damage. In light of recent studies highlighting the negative effect of sperm DNA damage on ART outcomes, these findings indicate a possible clinical significance for human sperm protamine levels.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".