Timing of Testicular Biopsy in Relation to Oocyte Retrieval and the Outcomes of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.

PURPOSE: We evaluate microscopic (micro) testicular sperm extraction (TESE) timing relative to oocyte retrieval on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Couples with nonobstructive azoospermia who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection with freshly retrieved spermatozoa were analyzed based on whether micro-TESE was performed at least 1 day prior to oocyte retrieval (TESE-day-before group) or on the day of oocyte retrieval (TESE-day-of group). Embryology and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who underwent a successful testicular sperm retrieval was significantly lower in the TESE-day-before cohort (62%) than in the TESE-day-of cohort (69%; odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7], P < .001). The fertilization rate was also found to be significantly lower in the TESE-day-before group (45%) than in the TESE-day-of group (53%; OR 1.4, 95% CI [1.2, 1.7], P = .01). Although the association between the cleavage rate and TESE timing was not statistically significant, the implantation rate was found to be significantly higher in the day-before cohort (28%) than in the day-of cohort (22%; OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.6, 0.9], P = .01). Nevertheless, it was found that the clinical pregnancy and delivery rates were not statistically significantly associated with the TESE timing. CONCLUSIONS: Although sperm retrieval and fertilization rates were lower in the TESE-day-before cohort, the 2 cohorts showed comparable embryologic and clinical outcomes. Micro-TESE can be performed before oocyte harvesting to provide physicians ample time to decide between cancelling oocyte retrieval or retrieving oocytes for cryopreservation.

Genetic profiling of azoospermic men to identify the etiology and predict reproductive potential.

PURPOSE: To identify germline mutations related to azoospermia etiology and reproductive potential of surgically retrieved spermatozoa, and to investigate the feasibility of predicting seminiferous tubule function of nonobstructive azoospermic men by transcriptomic profiling of ejaculates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sperm specimens were obtained from 30 men (38.4 ± 6 years) undergoing epididymal sperm aspiration for obstructive azoospermia (OA, n = 19) acquired by vasectomy, or testicular biopsy for nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA, n = 11). To evaluate for a correlation with azoospermia etiology, DNAseq was performed on surgically retrieved spermatozoa, and cell-free RNAseq on seminal fluid (n = 23) was performed to predict spermatogenesis in the seminiferous tubule. RESULTS: Overall, surgically retrieved sperm aneuploidy rates were 1.7% and 1.8% among OA and NOA cohorts, respectively. OA men carried housekeeping-related gene mutations, while NOA men displayed mutations on genes involved in crucial spermiogenic functions (AP1S2, AP1G2, APOE). We categorized couples within each cohort according to ICSI clinical outcomes to investigate genetic causes that may affect reproductive potential. All OA-fertile men (n = 9) carried mutations in ZNF749 (sperm production), whereas OA-infertile men (n = 10) harbored mutations in PRB1, which is essential for DNA replication. NOA-fertile men (n = 8) carried mutations in MPIG6B (stem cell lineage differentiation), whereas NOA-infertile individuals (n = 3) harbored mutations in genes involved in spermato/spermio-genesis (ADAM29, SPATA31E1, MAK, POLG, IFT43, ATG9B) and early embryonic development (MBD5, CCAR1, PMEPA1, POLK, REC8, REPIN1, MAPRE3, ARL4C). Transcriptomic assessment of cell-free RNAs in seminal fluid from NOA men allowed the prediction of residual spermatogenic foci. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm genome profiling provides invaluable information on azoospermia etiology and identifies gene-related mechanistic links to reproductive performance. Moreover, RNAseq assessment of seminal fluid from NOA men can help predict sperm retrieval during testicular biopsies.

Sperm centriolar factors and genetic defects that can predict pregnancy.

The human sperm centrosome, comprising the two morphologically distinct centrioles and associated pericentriolar materials, plays a crucial role in fertilization and early embryonic development after fertilization. Once inside the oocyte, the sperm centrosome serves as a microtubule-organizing center, orchestrating mitotic spindle formation, chromosome segregation, and syngamy. Abnormalities of the sperm centrosome can lead to abnormal embryonic development and embryonic chromosomal instability, and are associated with pregnancy loss. Recent research has shed light on the molecular composition, regulation, and function of this vital organelle. Understanding the intricacies of the sperm centrosome is crucial for elucidating the mechanisms underlying successful fertilization and early embryonic development, as well as addressing infertility and developmental disorders associated with centrosomal defects.

A comparison between the Felix™ electrophoretic system of sperm isolation and conventional density gradient centrifugation: a multicentre analysis.

PURPOSE: Developing optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving density gradient centrifugation (DGC). METHODS: Five international ART Centres in Australia, India, Sweden, the USA, and China have collaborated in order to compare the quality of the sperm populations isolated by Felix™ and DGC in terms of processing time, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and DNA integrity as assessed by 3 methods: SCSA, Halo, and TUNEL. RESULTS: Across all centers, 112 comparisons were performed. Although significant differences were noted between centers in terms of the quality of the semen samples subjected for analysis, overall, both methods were equally capable of isolating populations of spermatozoa exhibiting high levels of vitality and progressive motility. The absolute numbers of spermatozoa recovered were significantly (p < 0.001) lower with the Felix™ device although sperm quality was higher with 4/5 centers reporting a significant improvement in DNA integrity relative to DGC (p < 0.01-p < 0.001). In practical terms, the Felix™ device featured a standardized 6 min preparation time whereas clinical DGC protocols varied from center to center but generally took around 40 min to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The Felix™ device is a positive technical development capable of isolating suspensions of highly motile spermatozoa exhibiting low levels of DNA damage in a fraction of the time taken by conventional procedures such as DGC.

Can a sperm selection technique improve embryo ploidy?

BACKGROUND: Spermatozoa with the highest motility retain a superior genomic integrity, and elevated sperm chromatin fragmentation (SCF) has been linked to a lower ability of the conceptus to develop and implant. Therefore, the utilization of a sperm selection method, such as microfluidic sperm selection (MFSS), is capable of reducing the SCF by yielding the most motile fraction of spermatozoa with the highest embryo developmental competence. What remains unclear, however, is the causal mechanism that links SCF to an impaired embryo development. OBJECTIVES: To identify a relationship between SCF and an unexpectedly high proportion of embryo aneuploidy, while addressing treatment options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified couples with a high incidence of embryo aneuploidy in a previous intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle with pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), utilizing spermatozoa selected by density gradient (DG). Terminal deoxynucleotidyl dUTP transferase nick-end labeling (TUNEL) and neutral Comet assays were carried out on the semen specimens to assess total SCF and double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) fragmentation, respectively. These couples underwent subsequent ICSI/PGT-A cycles with MFSS. Total SCF and dsDNA fragmentation were compared between the two sperm selection methods. Embryo aneuploidy, implantation, clinical pregnancy, delivery, and pregnancy loss rates were compared between the couples' historical DG and subsequent MFSS cycles. RESULTS: In 57 couples undergoing 71 ICSI/PGT-A cycles, where DG sperm selection was carried out, a high incidence of aneuploid embryos (74.7%) resulted in poor implantation and no viable pregnancies. Testing for SCF, inclusive of dsDNA breaks, evidenced a SCF of 26.2% and dsDNA break of 3.6% in the raw specimen, that decreased to 18.0% (p < 0.001) and 3.1%, respectively, in the DG processed specimen. Following MFSS, total SCF and dsDNA fragmentation decreased to 1.9% and 0.3%, respectively (p < 0.001). The embryo euploidy rate remarkable improved from 25.3% in the DG cycles to 42.9% in the MFSS cycles (p < 0.001). The 6.7% implantation rate in the DG cycles increased to 65.5% in the MFSS cycles (p < 0.001). Similarly, the clinical pregnancy rate rose from 10.5% (DG) to 64.6% (MFSS), resulting in a 62.5% delivery rate (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In couples with a relatively young female partner with a negative infertility workup, and a male partner with semen parameters adequate for ICSI, presenting with a high rate of embryo aneuploidy, an additional subtle male factor component may be the culprit. Thus, it is crucial to assess the SCF and test for the dsDNA breaks, which can eventually contribute to embryo chromosomal abnormalities. Given the inverse relationship between SCF and motility, a selection of the most motile gamete by MFSS enhanced the proportion of spermatozoa with an intact genome, contributing to the generation of more euploid embryos that are capable of implanting and yielding increased term pregnancies.

Assessing male gamete genome integrity to ameliorate poor assisted reproductive technology clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of evaluating sperm chromatin fragmentation (SCF) as a tool to guide treatment in couples who achieved unexpectedly poor clinical outcomes after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DESIGN: We identified couples with an unexpectedly suboptimal clinical outcome after ICSI who were then screened for SCF. Consequently, the same couples were counseled to undergo a subsequent ICSI cycle using either ejaculates processed by microfluidic sperm selection (MFSS) or spermatozoa retrieved from the testis, and clinical outcomes were compared between history and treatment cycles. To confirm the sole effect of a compromised male gamete, we compared the ICSI outcome in cycles where male gametes with abnormal SCF were used to inseminate autologous and donor oocytes. Finally, to eliminate an eventual confounding female factor component, we compared the clinical outcome of ICSI cycles using sibling donor oocytes injected with spermatozoa with normal or abnormal SCF. SETTING: Academic reproductive medicine center point of care. PATIENT(S): The patient population consisted of 76 couples with reproductively healthy and relatively young female partners and male partners with compromised semen parameters, but suitable for ICSI. In a subanalysis, we identified 67 couples with abnormal SCF who underwent ICSI cycle(s) with donor oocytes. Furthermore, we identified 29 couples, 12 with normal SCF and 17 with abnormal, uncorrected SCF, and 7 couples with abnormal, corrected SCF vs. a control, who used sibling donor oocytes for their ICSI cycle(s). INTERVENTION(S): For couples who resulted in surprisingly low clinical outcomes after ICSI, despite semen parameters adequate for ICSI and a normal female infertility evaluation, a SCF assessment was performed on the semen specimen using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated fluorescein-deoxyuridine triphosphate nick-end labeling (TUNEL) assay. The couples then underwent a subsequent ICSI cycle with spermatozoa processed by MFSS or surgically retrieved. Moreover, cycles with donor oocytes were used to confirm the sole contribution of the male gamete. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical outcomes, such as fertilization, embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, delivery, and pregnancy loss rates were compared between history and treatment cycle(s) using ejaculated spermatozoa selected by MFSS or from a testicular biopsy, taking into consideration the level of SCF. In a subanalysis, we reported the clinical outcomes of 67 patients who used donor oocytes and compared them with cycles where their own oocytes were used. Furthermore, we compared the ICSI clinical outcomes between cycles using sibling donor oocytes injected with low or high SCF with or without sperm intervention aimed at correcting, or alleviating the degree of SCF. RESULT(S): In a total of 168 cycles, 76 couples had in a prior cycle a 67.1% fertilization rate, and clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss rates of 16.6% and 52.3%, respectively. After testing for SCF, the DNA fragmentation rate was 21.6%. This led to a subsequent ICSI cycle with MFSS or testicular sperm extraction, resulting in clinical pregnancy and delivery rates of 39.2%, and 37.3%, respectively. The embryo implantation rate increased to 23.5%, whereas the pregnancy loss rate decreased to 5% in the treatment cycle. This was particularly significant in the moderate SCF group, reaching embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, and delivery rates of 24.3%, 40.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, and reducing the pregnancy loss rate to 10.5% in post-sperm treatment cycles. In 67 patients with high SCF who used donor oocytes, a significantly higher fertilization rate of 78.1% and embryo implantation rate of 29.1% were reported, compared with those in couples also with an elevated SCF who used their own. Interestingly, the clinical pregnancy and delivery rates only increased slightly from 28.0%-36.1% and from 23.7%-29.2%, respectively. To further control for a female factor, we observed couples who shared sibling donor oocytes, 17 with normal SCF and 12 with abnormal (uncorrected) SCF. Interestingly, the abnormal SCF group had impaired fertilization (69.3%), embryo implantation (15.0%), and delivery (15.4%) rates. For an additional 15 couples who split their donor oocytes, 8 had normal SCF, and although 7 couples originally had abnormal SCF, 4 used microfluidic processing, 2 used testicular spermatozoa, and 1 used donor spermatozoa to alleviate the degree of SCF, resulting in comparable clinical outcomes with the normal SCF group. CONCLUSION(S): A superimposed male factor component may explain the disappointing ICSI outcome in some couples despite reproductively healthy female partners. Therefore, it may be useful to screen couples for SCF to guide treatment options and maximize chances of a successful pregnancy. The improved, but suboptimal pregnancy and delivery outcomes observed in couples using donor oocytes confirmed the exclusive detrimental role that the male gamete exerted on embryo development despite the presence of putative oocyte repair mechanisms.