Methods in Cell Science

, Volume 22, Issue 2–3, pp 169–189 | Cite as

Sperm chromatin structure assay is useful for fertility assessment

  • Donald Evenson
  • Lorna Jost
Article

Abstract

The Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA) serves as a tool for measuring clinically important properties of sperm nuclear chromatin integrity. The assay utilizes the metachromatic features of Acridine Orange (AO), a DNA probe, and the principles of flow cytometry (FCM). SCSA data are not well correlated with classical sperm quality parameters and have been solidly shown to predict sub/infertility. This assay is ideally suited to human and animal fertility clinics to assess male sperm DNA integrity as related to fertility potential and embryo development as well as effects of reproductive toxicants. A detailed description of the SCSA follows.

Acridine orange Animal and human fertility DNA denaturation Flow cytometry SCSA Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay Toxicology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aravindan GR, Bjordahl J, Jost LK, Evenson DP (1997). Susceptibility of human sperm to in situ DNA denaturation is strongly correlated with DNA strand breaks identified by single-cell electrophoresis. Exp Cell Res 236: 231-237.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballachey BE, Hohenboken WD, Evenson DP (1987). Heterogeneity of sperm nuclear chromatin structure and its relationship to fertility of bulls. Biol Reprod 36: 915-925.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballachey BE, Saacke RG, Evenson DP (1988). The sperm chromatin structure assay: Relationship with alternate tests of sperm quality and heterospermic performance of bulls. J Androl 9: 109-115.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darzynkiewicz Z, Juan G (1997). Differential Staining of DNA and RNA. Current Protocols in Cytometry 7.3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darzynkiewicz Z, Traganos F, Sharpless T, Melamed MR (1975). Thermal denaturation of DNA in situ as studied by Acridine Orange staining and automated cytofluorometry. Exp Cell Res 90: 411-428.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engh E, Clausen OPF, Scholberg A, Tollefsrud A, Purvis K (1992). Relationship between sperm quality and chromatin condensation measured by sperm DNA fluorescence using flow cytometry. Int J Androl 15: 407-415.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Estop AM, Munne S, Jost LK, Evenson DP (1993). Alterations in sperm chromatin structure correlates with cytogenetic damage of mouse sperm following in vitro incubation. J Androl 14: 282-288.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evenson DP (1999). Alterations and damage of sperm chromatin structure and early embryonic failure. In: Jannsen R, Mortimer D (eds), Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond 1999 (pp 313-329). Parthenon Publishing Group Ltd, NY/London,.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evenson DP (1999). Loss of livestock breeding efficiency due to uncompensable sperm nuclear defects. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 11: 1-15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evenson DP (1997). Sperm nuclear DNA strand breaks and altered chromatin structure: Are there concerns for natural fertility and assisted fertility in the andrology lab? Moving Beyond Boundaries: Clinical Andrology in the 21st Century. Andrology Laboratory Workshop. Postgraduate Course. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evenson DP, Baer RK, Jost LK (1989). Flow cytometric analysis of rodent epididymal spermatozoal chromatin condensation and loss of free sulfhydryl groups. Mol Reprod and Devel 1: 283-288.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evenson DP, Baer RK, Jost LK (1989). Long term effects of triethylenemelamine exposure on mouse testis cells and sperm chromatin structure assayed by flow cytometry. Env and Mol Mutag 14: 79-89.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evenson DP, Baer RK, Jost LK, Gesch RW (1986). Toxicity of thiotepa on mouse spermatogenesis as determined by dual parameter flow cytometry. Tox and Applied Pharmacol 82: 151-163.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z (1990). Acridine orange induced precipitation of mouse testicular sperm cell DNA reveals new patterns of chromatin structure. Exp Cell Res 187: 328-334.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Jost L, Janca F, Ballachey B (1986). Changes in accessibility of DNA to various fluorochromes during spermatogenesis. Cytometry 7: 45-53.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR (1980). Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 240: 1131-1133.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evenson DP, Emerick RJ, Jost LK, Kayongo-Male H, Stewart SR (1993). Zinc-Silicon interactions influencing sperm chromatin integrity and testicular cell development in the rat as measured by flow cytometry. J Anim Sci 71: 955-962.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evenson DP, Higgins PH, Grueneberg D, Ballachey B (1985). Flow cytometric analysis of mouse spermatogenic function following exposure to ethylnitrosourea. Cytometry 6: 238-253.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evenson DP, Janca FC, Jost LK, Baer RK, Karabinus DS (1989). Flow cytometric analysis of effects of 1,3-Dinitrobenzene on rat spermatogenesis. J Tox and Env Health 28: 81-98.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evenson DP, Janca FC, Baer RK, Jost LK, Karabinus DS (1989). Effect of 1,3-Dinitrobenzene on prepubertal, pubertal and adult mouse spermatogenesis. J Tox and Env Health 28: 67-80.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK (1993). Hydroxyurea exposure alters mouse testicular kinetics and sperm chromatin structure. Cell Prolif 26: 147-159.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK (1994). Sperm chromatin structure assay: DNA denaturability. In: Darzynkiewicz Z, Robinson JP, Crissman HA (eds), Methods in Cell Biology, Vol 42: Flow Cytometry (pp 159-176). Acad Press, Inc, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK (2000) Sperm Chromatin structure assay for fertility assessment. In: Robinson JP (ed), Protocols in Cytometry, Unit 7.13. John Wiley and Sons (in press).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Baer RK (1993). Effects of methyl methanesulfonate on mouse sperm chromatin structure and testicular cell kinetics. Env and Mol Mutag 21: 144-153.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evenson DP, Jost L, Baer R, Turner T, Schrader S (1991). Individuality of DNA denaturation patterns in human sperm as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Reprod Tox 5: 115-125.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Corzett M, Balhorn R (2000). Effect of elevated body temperature on human sperm chromatin structure. J Androl 21(5): 739-746.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Evenson D, Jost L, Gandour D, Rhodes L, Stanton B, Clausen OP, De Angelis P, Coico R, Daley A, Becker K, Yopp T (1995). Comparative sperm chromatin structure assay measurements on epiillumination and orthogonal axes flow cytometers. Cytometry 19: 295-303.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Gandy JG (1993). Glutathione depletion potentiates ethyl methanesulfonate-induced susceptibility of rat sperm DNA denaturation in situ. Reprod Tox 7: 297-304.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evenson D, Jost L, Sailer B (1995). Flow cytometry of sperm chromatin structure as related to toxicology and fertility. Proceedings of Seventh International Spermatology Symposium, Cairns, Australia (October).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Varner DD (2000). Stallion sperm nuclear protamine-SH status and susceptibility to DNA denaturation are not strongly correlated. J Fert Reprod Suppl 52: (in press).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, de Angelis P, Clausen OP (1999). Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod 14: 1039-1049.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evenson DP, Klein FA, Whitmore WF, Melamed MR (1984). Flow cytometric evaluation of sperm from patients with testicular carcinoma. J Urol 132: 1220-1225.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evenson DP, Melamed MR (1983). Rapid analysis of normal and abnormal cell types in human semen and testis biopsies by flow cytometry. J Histochem Cytochem 31: 248-253.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evenson DP, Thompson L, Jost L (1994). Flow cytometric evaluation of boar semen by the sperm chromatin structure assay as related to cryopreservation and fertility. Therio 41: 637-651.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fossa SD, De Angelis P, Kraggerud SM, Evenson D, Theodorsen L, Claussen OP (1997). Prediction of post-treatment spermatogenesis in patients with testicular cancer by flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure assay. Commun in Clin Cyt 30: 192-196.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gledhill BL, Lake S, Steinmetz LL, Gray JW, Crawford JR, Dean PN, VanDilla MA (1976). Flow microfluorometric analysis of sperm DNA content: Effect of cell shape on the fluorescence distribution. J Cell Phys 87: 367-376.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorzcyca W, Gong J, Darzynkiewicz Z (1993). Detection of DNA strand breaks in individual apoptotic cells by the in situ terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and nick translation assays. Can Res 53: 945-951.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grajewski B, Cox C, Schrader SM, Murray WE, Edwards RM, Turner TW, Smith JM, Shekar SS, Evenson DP, Simon SD, Conover DL (2000). Semen quality and hormone levels among radiofrequency heat sealer operators. J Occup Env Med (Oct) (in press).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Larson K, DeJonge C, Barnes A, Jost L, Evenson D (2000). Relationship between assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcome and status of chromatin integrity as measured by the Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA). Human Reprod 15(8): 1717-1722.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lemasters GK, Olsen DM, Yiin JH, Lockey JE, Shukla R, Selevan SG, Schrader SM, Toth GP, Evenson DP, Huszar GB (1999). Male reproductive effects of solvent and fuel exposure during aircraft maintenance. Reprod Tox 13: 155-166.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perreault SD, Rubes J, Robbins WA, Evenson DP, Selevan SG (2000). Evaluation of aneuploidy and DNA damage in human spermatozoa: application in field studies. Andologia 32: (in press).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Potts RJ, Newbury CJ, Smith G, Notarianni LJ, Jefferies TM (1999). Sperm chromatin damage associated with male smoking. Mut Res 423: 103-111.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rubes J, Lowe X, Moore D, Perreault S, Slott V, Evenson D, Selevan S, Wyrobek AJ (1998). Cigarettesmoking lifestyle is associated with increased sperm disomy in teenage men. Fert Steril 70: 715-723.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sailer BL, Jost LK, Erickson KR, Tajiran MA, Evenson DP (1995a). Effects of X-ray irradiation on mouse testicular cells and sperm chromatin structure. Env and Mol Mutag 25: 23-30.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sailer BL, Jost LK, Evenson DP (1995b). 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 Androl 16: 80-87.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Selevan SG, Borkovec L, Slott VL, Zudova Z, Rubes J, Evenson DP, Perreault SD (2000). Semen quality and reproductive health of young Czech men exposed to seasonal air pollution (submitted). 188Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shapiro HM (1985). Practical Flow Cytometry (p 36). Alan R Liss, Inc, NY.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shapiro HM (1988). Practical Flow Cytometry, 2nd Ed (pp 67-68, 205-207). Alan R Liss, Inc, NY.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spanò M, Kolstad H, Lars'en SB, Cordelli E, Leter G, Giwercman A, Bonde JP, Asclepios 1998 The applicability of the flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure assay in epidemiological studies. Human Reprod 13: 2495-2505.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tejada RI, Mitchell JC, Norman A, Marik JJ, Friedman S (1984). A test for the practical evaluation of male fertility by acridine orange (AO) fluorescence. Fertil Steril 42: 87-91.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vine MF, Hulka BS, Everson RB, Evenson D (2000). An assessment of DNA damage in the sperm of smokers and nonsmokers using the sperm chromatin structure assay. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention (submitted).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Weiss JL, Larson KL, Marshall DM, Jost LK, Evenson DP (2000). A comparison of the acridiine orange microscope test (AOT) and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) for assessing sperm chromatin integrity (submitted)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wyrobek AJ, Schrader SM, Perrault SD, Fenster L, Huszar G, Katz DF, Osorio AM, Sublet V, Evenson D (1997). Assessment of reproductive disorders and birth defects in communities near hazardous chemical sites. III. Guidelines for field studies of male reproductive disorders. Reprod Tox 11: 243-259.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald Evenson
  • Lorna Jost

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations