Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index: Limited Effectiveness on Predicting Embryo Quality in Assisted Reproduction Technology Treatments

Overview

Journal Reprod Biol Endocrinol

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2025 Jan 25

PMID 39863907

Authors

Huan Jiang

Xiaolu Xia

Ying Luo

Haiyan Pan

Shihao Qu

Jianying Xu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Prior sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) thresholds for diagnosing male infertility and predicting assisted reproduction technology (ART) outcomes fluctuated between 15 and 30%, with no agreed standard. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the sperm DFI on early embryonic development during ART treatments and establish appropriate DFI cut-off values.

Methods: Retrospectively analyzed 913 couple's ART cycles from 2021 to 2022, encompassing 1,476 IVF and 295 ICSI cycles, following strict criteria. The WHO guidelines directed the semen analysis, while the acridine orange test (AOT) determined the DFI. Male factors (age, BMI, DFI, infertility duration, sperm parameters) and female parameters (age, BMI, AMH, retrieved oocytes) were evaluated. We also assessed embryological parameters like fertilization rate, cleavage rate, and blastocyst quality. Correlations between DFI and embryo quality were examined and DFI cut-off values were established using ROC analysis.

Results: The Sperm DFI demonstrated a positive correlation with male age and a negative correlation with sperm motility, concentration, and normal morphology, while showing no relation to BMI. No connection between DFI and embryological parameters in only IVF and ICSI groups was found, but a negative correlation with fertilization rate was seen in all ART cycles. ROC curve analysis revealed a DFI cut-off value of 21.15% having 36.7% sensitivity and 28.9% specificity in predicting high fertilization rate (≥ 80%).

Conclusion: Sperm DFI had a negative correlation with fertilization rate, but limited predictive efficacy and no significant link to other embryological parameters. DFI assessments may improve early embryo development prediction during ART treatments, particularly in older males or those exhibiting poor sperm quality.

References

Yang Q, Zhao F, Dai S, Zhang N, Zhao W, Bai R . Sperm telomere length is positively associated with the quality of early embryonic development. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(8):1876-81. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev144. View

Zhang F, Li J, Liang Z, Wu J, Li L, Chen C . Sperm DNA fragmentation and male fertility: a retrospective study of 5114 men attending a reproductive center. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(5):1133-1141. PMC: 8190431. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02120-5. View

Bibi R, Jahan S, Razak S, Hammadeh M, Almajwal A, Amor H . Protamines and DNA integrity as a biomarkers of sperm quality and assisted conception outcome. Andrologia. 2022; 54(6):e14418. DOI: 10.1111/and.14418. View

Liu K, Mao X, Pan F, Chen Y, An R . Correlation analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation index with semen parameters and the effect of sperm DFI on outcomes of ART. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):2717. PMC: 9931767. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28765-z. View

Wiweko B, Utami P . Predictive value of sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation index in male infertility. Basic Clin Androl. 2017; 27:1. PMC: 5319071. DOI: 10.1186/s12610-016-0046-3. View

Lin H, Wu M, Wu W, Tsai L, Chen Y, Hung K . Incorporating sperm DNA fragmentation index with computer-assisted semen morphokinematic parameters as a better window to male fertility. Chin J Physiol. 2022; 65(3):143-150. DOI: 10.4103/CJP.CJP_12_22. View

Yang H, Li G, Jin H, Guo Y, Sun Y . The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation index on assisted reproductive technology outcomes and its relationship with semen parameters and lifestyle. Transl Androl Urol. 2019; 8(4):356-365. PMC: 6732090. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.06.22. View

Malic Voncina S, Stenqvist A, Bungum M, Schyman T, Giwercman A . Sperm DNA fragmentation index and cumulative live birth rate in a cohort of 2,713 couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Fertil Steril. 2021; 116(6):1483-1490. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.049. View

Rafael F, Rodrigues M, Bellver J, Canelas-Pais M, Garrido N, Garcia-Velasco J . The combined effect of BMI and age on ART outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2023; 38(5):886-894. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead042. View

10.

Simon L, Murphy K, Shamsi M, Liu L, Emery B, Aston K . Paternal influence of sperm DNA integrity on early embryonic development. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(11):2402-12. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu228. View

11.

Osaka A, Okada H, Onozuka S, Tanaka T, Iwahata T, Shimomura Y . Evaluation of the sperm DNA fragmentation index in infertile Japanese men by in-house flow cytometric analysis. Asian J Androl. 2021; 24(1):40-44. PMC: 8788612. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_49_21. View

12.

Aitken R . Not every sperm is sacred; a perspective on male infertility. Mol Hum Reprod. 2018; 24(6):287-298. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gay010. View

13.

Kawwass J, Hipp H, Session D, Kissin D, Jamieson D . Severity of Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Chance of Success with Assisted Reproductive Technology. J Reprod Med. 2018; 62(3-4):153-60. PMC: 11057004. View

14.

Ferraretti A, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla J . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(9):2318-31. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det278. View

15.

Wang Q, Wang X, Yu M, Sun H, Wang D, Zhong S . Random sperm DNA fragmentation index is not associated with clinical outcomes in day-3 frozen embryo transfer. Asian J Androl. 2021; 24(1):109-115. PMC: 8788616. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_17_21. View

16.

Chambers G, Harrison C, Raymer J, Petersen Raymer A, Britt H, Chapman M . Infertility management in women and men attending primary care-patient characteristics, management actions and referrals. Hum Reprod. 2019; 34(11):2173-2183. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez172. View

17.

Bruno C, Bourredjem A, Barry F, Frappier J, Martinaud A, Chamoy B . Analysis and quantification of female and male contributions to the first stages of embryonic kinetics: study from a time-lapse system. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 39(1):85-95. PMC: 8866590. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02336-5. View

18.

Gill K, Jakubik-Uljasz J, Rosiak-Gill A, Grabowska M, Matuszewski M, Piasecka M . Male aging as a causative factor of detrimental changes in human conventional semen parameters and sperm DNA integrity. Aging Male. 2020; 23(5):1321-1332. DOI: 10.1080/13685538.2020.1765330. View

19.

Bjorndahl L, Kirkman Brown J . The sixth edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen: ensuring quality and standardization in basic examination of human ejaculates. Fertil Steril. 2022; 117(2):246-251. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.12.012. View

20.

Vallet-Buisan M, Mecca R, Jones C, Coward K, Yeste M . Contribution of semen to early embryo development: fertilization and beyond. Hum Reprod Update. 2023; 29(4):395-433. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmad006. View