Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anogenital distance as a measure of human male fertility

  • Reproductive Physiology and Disease
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In humans, recent studies have correlated anogenital distance (AGD) in adult men to testicular function. While studies of a group of men suggest an association, the utility of AGD in an infertility evaluation remains uncertain. We sought to determine the utility of AGD to predict male fertility.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2011, men were recruited at a urology clinic to participate. AGD was measured using digital calipers in men being evaluated at a urology clinic. ANOVA and ROC analyses were used to determine correlations between AGD, fatherhood status, and semen parameters.

Results

In all, 473 men were included in the analysis with a mean age of 43 ± 13 years. Anogenital distance was significantly longer in men with higher sperm concentration, total sperm count, and total motile sperm count. In order to evaluate the discriminating ability of AGD, ROC curves were created comparing AGD and total testis volume. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly larger for total testis volume compared to AGD when evaluating fertility (0.71 vs 0.63, p = 0.02). Similarly, there was a trend towards a higher AUC for testis volume compared to AGD for sperm concentration and total sperm count. Stratification of men with long/short AGD and large/small testes also did not improve the predictive value of AGD.

Conclusions

While AGD is associated with sperm production on a population level, at the individual level the distinction based AGD alone cannot accurately estimate the efficiency of spermatogenesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenham LW, Greenham V. Sexing mouse pups. Lab Anim. 1977;11:181–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hsieh MH, Breyer BN, Eisenberg ML, Baskin LS. Associations among hypospadias, cryptorchidism, anogenital distance, and endocrine disruption. Curr Urol Rep. 2008;9:137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marois G. [Action of progesterone, testosterone and estradiol on the anogenital distance and somatic sexual differentiation in rats]. Biol Med (Paris) 1968;57:44–90.

  4. Thankamony A, Ong KK, Dunger DB, Acerini CL, Hughes IA. Anogenital distance from birth to 2 years: a population study. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117:1786–90.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Torres-Sanchez L, Zepeda M, Cebrian ME, Belkind-Gerson J, Garcia-Hernandez RM, Belkind-Valdovinos U, et al. Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy alters the anal position in male infants. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1140:155–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salazar-Martinez E, Romano-Riquer P, Yanez-Marquez E, Longnecker MP, Hernandez-Avila M. Anogenital distance in human male and female newborns: a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Environ Health. 2004;3:8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sathyanarayana S, Beard L, Zhou C, Grady R. Measurement and correlates of ano-genital distance in healthy, newborn infants. Int J Androl. 2010;33:317–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eisenberg ML, Hsieh MH, Walters RC, Krasnow R, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance, fatherhood, and fertility in adult men. PLoS One. 2011;6:e18973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mendiola J, Stahlhut RW, Jorgensen N, Liu F, Swan SH. Shorter anogenital distance predicts poorer semen quality in young Men in rochester, New york. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:958–63.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenberg ML, Jensen TK, Walters RC, Skakkebaek NE, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and reproductive hormone levels in adult men. J Urol. 2012;187:594–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisenberg ML, Hsieh TC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and age. Andrology. 2013;1:90–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eisenberg ML, Shy M, Chanc Walters R, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and azoospermia in adult men. Int J Androl. 2012;35:726–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eisenberg ML, Shy M, Herder D, Walters RC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and the efficacy of varicocele repair. BJU Int. 2012;110:E927–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Castano-Vinyals G, Carrasco E, Lorente JA, Sabate Y, Cirac-Claveras J, Pollan M, et al. Anogenital distance and the risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110:E707–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dean A, Sharpe RM. Clinical review: Anogenital distance or digit length ratio as measures of fetal androgen exposure: relationship to male reproductive development and its disorders. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2013;98:2230–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Behre HM, Nashan D, Nieschlag E. Objective measurement of testicular volume by ultrasonography: evaluation of the technique and comparison with orchidometer estimates. Int J Androl. 1989;12:395–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:231–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE. Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and Repeated Measures Models. New York: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Larson WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Callegari C, Everett S, Ross M, Brasel JA. Anogenital ratio: measure of fetal virilization in premature and full-term newborn infants. J Pediatr. 1987;111:240–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Macleod DJ, Sharpe RM, Welsh M, Fisken M, Scott HM, Hutchison GR, et al. Androgen action in the masculinization programming window and development of male reproductive organs. Int J Androl. 2010;33:279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Welsh M, MacLeod DJ, Walker M, Smith LB, Sharpe RM. Critical androgen-sensitive periods of rat penis and clitoris development. Int J Androl. 2010;33:e144–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moss JL, Crosnoe LE, Kim ED. Effect of rejuvenation hormones on spermatogenesis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1814–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell RT, Mungall W, McKinnell C, Sharpe RM, Cruickshanks L, Milne L et al. Anogenital distance (AGD) plasticity in adulthood: Implications for its use as a biomarker of fetal androgen action. Endocrinology 2014:en20141534.

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Standford, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Michael L. Eisenberg

  2. Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Larry I. Lipshultz

Authors
  1. Michael L. Eisenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry I. Lipshultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L. Eisenberg.

Additional information

Capsule

In humans, recent studies have correlated anogenital distance (AGD) in adult men to testicular function. While AGD is associated with sperm production on a population level, at the individual level the distinction based AGD alone cannot accurately estimate the efficiency of spermatogenesis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eisenberg, M.L., Lipshultz, L.I. Anogenital distance as a measure of human male fertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 479–484 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0410-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0410-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation