Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA®): 30 Years of Experience with the SCSA®

Chapter

Abstract

The SCSA® is one of the most widely utilized tests of sperm DNA damage. There are now a number of commercial kits available for testing of sperm DNA fragmentation in which great variations of clinical thresholds exist both within the same test and between tests. This presents a real problem for the clinics in providing a correct diagnosis and prognosis to patients. The greatest utility of the SCSA® has been to suggest when the %DFI is >25% to do changes in lifestyle and/or medical intervention to reduce this value. In addition, such couples should avoid spending time in unsuccessful IUI treatment but instead move on to IVF and preferably ICSI for the greatest success.

Keywords

Sperm chromatin structure assay Sperm DNA damage 

References

  1. 1.
    Bjorndahl L, Mortimer D, Barratt C, et al. A practical guide to basic laboratory andrology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kametsky LA, Melamed MR. Spectrophotometer: spectrophotometer cell sorter. Science. 1967;156:1364–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darzynkiewicz Z, Traganos F, Sharpless T, et al. Thermal denaturation of DNA in situ as studied by acridine orange staining and automated cytofluorometry. Exp Cell Res. 1975;90:411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science. 1980;240:131–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evenson DP, Higgins PH, Grueneberg D, et al. Flow cytometric analysis of mouse spermatogenic function following exposure to ethylnitrosourea. Cytometry. 1985;6:238–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evenson DP, Tritle D. Platform Presentation Abstract: “Characterization of SCSA Resolved Sperm Populations by Comet Assay and Image Analysis”. IFFS 8th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, Palais des congres de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec Canada. 2004; May 23/28.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evenson D, Witkin S, de Harven E, et al. Ultrastructure of partially decondensed human spermatozoal chromatin. Ultrastructure.1978;63:178–87.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evenson D, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed M. Comparison of human and mouse chromatin structure by flow cytometry. Chromosoma. 1980;78:225–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Varner DD. Stallion sperm nuclear protamine -SH status and susceptibility to DNA denaturation are not strongly correlated. J Reprod Fertility Suppl. 2000;56:401–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Love CC, Kenny RM. Scrotal Heat stress induces altered sperm chromatin structure associated with a decrease in protamine disulfide bonding in the stallion. Biol Reprod. 1999;60:615–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Corzett M, et al. Characteristics of human sperm chromatin structure following an ­episode of influenza and high fever: a case study. J Androl. 2001;21:739–46.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeffay SC, Strader LF, Buus RM, et al. Relationships among semen endpoints used as indicators of sperm nuclear integrity. Am Soc Androl. Abstract. 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorczyca W, Gong J, Darzynkiewicz Z. Detection of DNA strand breaks in individual apoptotic cells by the in situ terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and nick translational assays. Cancer Res. 1993;53:1945–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma RK, Sabenegh E, Mahfouz R, et al. TUNEL as a test for sperm DNA damage in the evaluation of male infertility. Urology. 2010;76:1380–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sailer BL, Jost LK, Evenson DP. Mammalian sperm DNA susceptibility to in situ denaturation associated with the presence of DNA strand breaks as measured by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase assay. J Andrology. 1995;16:80–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evenson DP, Baer RK, Jost LK. Long term effects of triethylenemelamine exposure on mouse testis cells and sperm chromatin structure assayed by flowcytometry. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1989;14:79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sailer BL, Jost LK, Erickson KR, et al. Effects of X-ray irradiation on mouse testicular cells and sperm chromatin structure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1995;25:23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evenson DP, Jost L, Baer R. Effect of methyl methanesulfonate on mouse sperm chromatin structure and testicular cell kinetics. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1993;21:144–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18a.
    Sega GA, Owens JG. Methylation of DNA and protamine by methyl methane sulfonate in the germ cells of male mice. Mutat Res. 1983;111:227–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Gandy JG. Glutathione depletion potentiates ethyl methanesulfonate-induced susceptibility of rat sperm DNA denaturation in situ. Reprod Toxicol. 1993;7:297–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Sanchez-Pena LC, Reyes BE, Lopez-Carrillo L, et al. Organophosphorous pesticide exposure alters sperm chromatin structure in Mexican agricultural workers. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004;196:108–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Rubes J, Selevan SG, Evenson DP, et al. Episodic air pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen quality. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2776–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    Evenson DP, Jost L, Baer R, et al. Individuality of DNA denaturation patterns in human sperm as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Toxicol. 1991;5:115–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Ballachey BE, Hohenboken WD, Evenson DP. Heterogeneity of sperm nuclear chromatin structure and its relationship to fertility of bulls. Biol Reprod. 1987;36:915–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    Ballachey BE, Saacke RG, Evenson DP. The sperm chromatin structure assay: relationship with alternate tests of sperm quality and heterospermic performance of bulls. J Androl. 1988;9:l09–115.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Didion B, Kasperson K, Wixon R, et al. Boar fertility and sperm chromatin structure status: a retrospective report. J Androl. 2009;30:655–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    Ahmadi A. Ng S-C Fertilizing ability of DNA-damaged spermatozoa. J Exp Zool. 1999;284:696–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 27.
    Boe-Hansen GB, Christensen P, Vibjerg D, et al. Sperm chromatin structure integrity in liquid stored boar semen and its relationships with field fertility. Theriogenology. 2008;69:728–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 28.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Zinaman MJ, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(4):1039–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    Spano M, Bonde J, Hjollund HI, et al. Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 30.
    Giwercman A, Lindstedt L, Larsson M, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay as an independent predictor of fertility in vivo: a case-control study. Int J Androl. 2010;33:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    Larson KL, DeJonge CJ, Barnes AM, et al. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters as predictors of failed pregnancy following assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(8):1717–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 32.
    Larson-Cook K, Brannian JD, Hansen KA, et al. Relationship between assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes and DNA fragmentation (DFI) as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA). Fertil Steril. 2003;80:895–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Boe-Hansen GB, Ersboll AK, Greve T, Christensen P. Increasing storage time of extended boar semen reduces sperm DNA integrity. Theriogenology. 2005;26(3):360–8.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    Boe-Hansen GB, Fedder J, Ersboll AK, et al. The sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(6):1576–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 35.
    Virro MR, Larson-Cook KL, Evenson DP. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA®) related to blastocyst rate, pregnancy rate and spontaneous abortion in IVF and ICSI cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1289–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    Greco E, Scarselli F, Iacobelli M, et al. Efficient treatment of infertility due to sperm DNA damage by ICSI with testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:226–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Werthman P, Boostanfar R, Chang W. Use of testicular sperm/intracytoplasmic sperm injection yields high pregnancy rates in couples who failed multiple in vitro fertilization cycles owing to high levels of sperm DNA Fragmentation. 2010 Pacific Coast Reproductive Society Abstract.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Carrell DT, Liu L, Peterson CM, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation is increased in couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Arch Androl. 2003;49:49–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Saleh RA, Agarwal A, Nada EA, et al. Negative effects of increased sperm DNA damage in relation to seminal oxidative stress in men with idiopathic and malefactor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2003;79: 1597–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Wyrobek AJ, Eskenazi B, Young S, et al. Advancing age has differential effects on DNA damage, chromatin integrity, gene mutations, and aneuploidies in sperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:9601–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Rubes J, Selevan SG, Sram RJ, et al. GSTM1 genotype influences the susceptibility of men to sperm DNA damage associated with exposure to air pollution. Mutat Res. 2007;625:20–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Chen SS, Huang WJ, Chang LS, et al. 8-hydroxy-20-deoxyguanosine in leukocyte DNA of spermatic vein as a biomarker of oxidative stress in patients with varicocele. J Urol. 2004;172:1239–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Zini A, Blumenfeld A, Libman J. et al; Beneficial effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy on human sperm DNA integrity. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1018–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.
    Yamamoto M, Hibi H, Tsuji Y, et al. The effect of varicocele ligation on oocyte fertilization and pregnancy after failure of fertilization in in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. 1994;40:683–7.Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Werthman P, Wixon R, Kasperson K, et al. Significant decreases in sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 2008;90: 1880–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    Evenson DP, Klein FA, Whitmore WF, et al. Flow cytometric evaluation of sperm from patients with testicular carcinoma. J Urol. 1984;132:1220–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 48.
    Fossa SD, De Angelis P, Kraggerud SM. Predication of post treatment spermatogenesis in patients with testicular cancer by flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure assay. Cytometry (Communications in Clinical Cytometry). 1997;30:192–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Romerius P, Stahl O, Moell C, et al. Sperm DNA integrity in men treated for childhood cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3843–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Karabinus DS, Vogler CJ, Saacke RG, et al. Chromatin structural changes in sperm after scrotal insulation of holstein bulls. J Androl. 1997;18:549–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    Sailer B, Sarkar LJ, Bjordahl JA, et al. Effects of heat stress on mouse testicular cells and sperm chromatin structure. J Androl. 1997;18:294–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Corzett M, Balhorn R. Characteristics of human sperm chromatin structure following an episode of influenza and high fever: a case study. J Androl. 2000;21:739–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    Tanrikut C, Feldman AS, Altemus M, et al. Adverse effect of paroxetine on sperm. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1021–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 54.
    Agbaje IM, Rogers DA, McVicar CM, McClure N, Atkinson AB, Mallidis C, et al. Insulin dependant diabetes mellitus: implications for male reproductive function. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    Pitteloud N, Hardin M, Dwyer AA, et al. Increasing insulin resistance is associated with decrease in Leydig cell testosterone secretion in men. J Clin Endrocrinol Metab. 2005;90:2636–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    Koçak I et al. Relationship between seminal plasma interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels with semen parameters in fertile and infertile men. Urol Res. 2002;30:263–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 57.
    Perdichizzi A et al. Effects of tumour necrosis factor-alpha on human sperm motility and apoptosis. J Clin Immunol. 2007;27(2):152–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SCSA DiagnosticsVolgaUSA
  2. 2.EmeritusSouth Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanford Medical SchoolUniversity of South DakotaSioux FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations