Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is becoming an important test to assess male infertility. Several different tests are available, but no consensus has yet been reached as to which tests are most predictive of infertility. Few publications have reported a comprehensive analysis comparing these methods within the same population. The objective of this study was to analyze the differences between the five most common methodologies, to study their correlations and to establish their cut‐off values, sensitivity and specificity in predicting male infertility. We found differences in SDF between fertile donors and infertile patients in TUNEL, SCSA, SCD and alkaline Comet assays, but none with the neutral Comet assay. The alkaline COMET assay was the best in predicting male infertility followed by TUNEL, SCD and SCSA, whereas the neutral COMET assay had no predictive power. For our patient population, threshold values for infertility were 20.05% for TUNEL assay, 18.90% for SCSA, 22.75% for the SCD test, 45.37% for alkaline Comet and 34.37% for neutral Comet. This work establishes in a comprehensive study that the all techniques except neutral Comet are useful to distinguish fertile and infertile men.

It is known that sperm samples from recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) couples have an increase in their sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), but no studies have been performed in order to identify differences between single stranded SDF (ssSDF) and double stranded SDF (dsSDF) in these patients. This could be relevant because the type of DNA damage could have different effects. Semen samples were classified attending their clinical status: 25 fertile donors and 20 RPL patients with at least two unexplained first trimester miscarriages. SDF was analysed using alkaline and neutral Comet assay, SCD test and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and ROC analysis including data from 105 more infertile patients (n = 150) was performed to establish predictive threshold values. SDF for alkaline and neutral Comet, and the SCD test was analysed in these categories of individuals. Data revealed the presence of two subgroups within fertile donors. The values obtained were 21.10±9.13, 23.35±10.45 and 12.31±4.31, respectively, for fertile donors with low values for both ssSDF and dsSDF; 27.86±12.64, 80.69±12.67 and 12.43±5.22, for fertile donors with low ssSDF and high dsSDF; and 33.61±15.50, 84.64±11.28 and 19.28±6.05, for unexplained RPL patients, also showing a low ssSDF and high dsSDF profile. This latter profile was seen in 85% of unexplained RPL and 33% of fertile donors, suggesting that it may be associated to a male risk factor for undergoing RPL. ROC analysis regarding recurrent miscarriage set the cut-off value at 77.50% of dsDNA SDF. PFGE for low ssSDF and high dsSDF profile samples and positive controls treated with DNase, to induce dsDNA breaks, showed a more intense band of about 48 kb, which fits the toroid model of DNA compaction in sperm, pointing out that some nuclease activity may be affecting their sperm DNA in RPL patients. This work identifies a very specific SDF profile related to the paternal risk of having RPL.

Summary: Sperm cryopreservation is widely used for both research and reproduction purposes, but its effect on sperm DNA damage remains controversial. Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has become an important biomarker to assess male infertility. In particular, the differentiation between single‐ and double‐stranded DNA fragmentation (ssSDF and dsSDF) has clinical implications for male infertility where ssSDF is associated with reduced fertility, whereas dsSDF is associated with increased risk of miscarriage. In this study, semen samples from 30 human males have been analysed in both fresh and cryopreserved using the alkaline and neutral Comet assays. Results show an increase of about 10% of ssSDF, assessed by the alkaline Comet assay, regardless of the male fertility status. Neutral Comet analysis of dsSDF does not show any statistical increase when comparing fresh and cryopreserved samples in any of the patient groups. Results support previous reports that oxidative stress is the major effector in DNA damage during sample cryopreservation, as, on one hand, ssSDF has previously been related to oxidative damage and, on the other hand, we have not found any effect on dsSDF. Therefore, there might be a slight risk of decreased fertility after using a freezed sample, but no evidence for increased miscarriage risk from cryopreserved spermatozoa should be expected.

Some studies have shown that complementary biomarkers are needed in semen analysis to provide a more accurate diagnosis for couples with infertility problems. To our knowledge no study has been done to determine the relationships among nuclease activity in seminal plasma, semen parameters, sperm DNA fragmentation and male infertility. A total of 94 semen samples were collected according to WHO 2010 semen analysis parameters. Samples were analyzed using the single radial enzyme diffusion method for nuclease activity in seminal plasma, and alkaline and neutral Comet assay for sperm DNA fragmentation. Samples were obtained from 11 fertile donors with proven fertility, 17 patients with normozoospermia in an infertile couple, and 16 patients with asthenozoospermia, 19 with teratozoospermia, 21 with asthenoteratozoospermia and 10 with azoospermia. Nuclease activity analyzed in seminal plasma was higher in patients than in controls. It correlated with sperm motility and morphology, and sperm DNA fragmentation measured by the alkaline Comet assay. No correlation with sperm DNA fragmentation was measured by the neutral Comet assay. ROC curves to determine male infertility revealed 0.658 sensitivity, 0.727 specificity and 0.705 cm(2) AUC for the single radial enzyme diffusion method, 0.918, 1 and 0.994 cm(2) for the alkaline Comet assay, and 0.917, 0.250 and 0.373 cm(2), respectively, for the neutral Comet assay. Nuclease activity in seminal plasma corrected by sperm count is a good variable to predict male infertility. Results indicate that it could be a useful complementary parameter for male infertility diagnosis.

Comprehensive chromosome analysis techniques such as metaphase-Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (CGH) and array-CGH are available for single-cell analysis. However, while metaphase-CGH and BAC array-CGH have been widely used for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, oligonucleotide array-CGH has not been used in an extensive way. A comparison between oligonucleotide array-CGH and metaphase-CGH has been performed analysing 15 single fibroblasts from aneuploid cell-lines and 18 single blastomeres from human cleavage-stage embryos. Afterwards, oligonucleotide array-CGH and BAC array-CGH were also compared analysing 16 single blastomeres from human cleavage-stage embryos. All three comprehensive analysis techniques provided broadly similar cytogenetic profiles; however, non-identical profiles appeared when extensive aneuploidies were present in a cell. Both array techniques provided an optimised analysis procedure and a higher resolution than metaphase-CGH. Moreover, oligonucleotide array-CGH was able to define extra segmental imbalances in 14.7% of the blastomeres and it better determined the specific unbalanced chromosome regions due to a higher resolution of the technique (≈20 kb). Applicability of oligonucleotide array-CGH for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis has been demonstrated in two cases of Robertsonian translocation carriers 45,XY,der(13;14)(q10;q10). Transfer of euploid embryos was performed in both cases and pregnancy was achieved by one of the couples. This is the first time that an oligonucleotide array-CGH approach has been successfully applied to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for balanced chromosome rearrangement carriers.