Paternal Effects on Fertilization, Embryo Development, and Pregnancy Outcome

  • Denny Sakkas
  • Odette Moffatt
  • Mathew Tomlinson
  • GianCarlo Manicardi
  • Davide Bizzaro
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings in the Serono Symposia USA Series book series (SERONOSYMP)


It has long been recognized that oocyte factors can drastically influence fertilization, embryo development and pregnancy outcome in the human. The role that the spermatozoon plays, however, has not been thought to be as important. Much of this was probably related to the idea that the paternal influence was an “all or nothing” event: If the semen parameters of a male were poor (i.e., low sperm concentration, motility, and morphology), then they would not ensue in fertilization. If poor sperm were not even able to create an embryo, then that was believed to be the end of the story. It is now becoming more evident that some of the intrinsic properties of spermatozoa may influence the ensuing embryo, including anomalies in the sperm nucleus (1), the organelles (2) and even the elaborate cytoskeleton of the sperm (3).


Embryo Development Male Gamete Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Semen Parameter Sperm Nucleus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sakkas D, Urner F, Bizzaro D, Manicardi G, Bianchi PG, Shoukir Y, et al. Sperm nuclear DNA damage and altered chromatin structure: effect on fertilization and embryo development. Hum Reprod 1998;13(Suppl. 4):11–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shoubridge EA. Transmission of mammalian mitochondrial DNA. In: Gagnon C, ed. The male gamete: from basic science to clinical applications. Vienna, IL: Cache River Press, 1999:283–90.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewitson L, Simerly C, Sutovsky P, Dominko T, Takahashi D, Schatten G. The fate of sperm components within the egg during fertilization: implications for infertility. In: Gagnon C, ed. The male gamete: from basic science to c1inical applications. Vienna, IL: Cache River Press, 1999:273–82.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs P, Hassold T, Harvey J, May K. The origin of sex chromosome aneuploidy. Prog Clin Biol Res 1989;311:135–51.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dellarco VL. Genetic anomalies in mammalian germ cells and their significance for human reproductive and developmental risk. Environ Health Perspect 1993; 101(Suppl. 2):5–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luke GA, Riches AC, Bryant PE. Genomic instability in haematopoietic cells of F1 generation mice of irradiated male parents. Mutagenesis 1997;12:147–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lord BI, Woolford LB, Wang L, Stones VA, McDonald D, Lorimore SA, et al. Tumour induction by methyl-nitroso-urea following preconceptional patemal contamination with plutonium–239. Br J Cancer 1998;78:301–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickinson HO, Parker L, Binks K, Wakeford R, Smith J. The sex ratio of children in relation to patemal preconceptional radiation dose: a study in Cumbria, northem England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:645–52.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker L, Craft AW, Smith J, Dickinson H, Wakeford R, Binks K, et al. Geographical distribution of preconceptional radiation doses to fathers employed at the Sellafield nuclear installation, West Cumbria. Br Med J 1993;307:966–71.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parker L, Pearce MS, Dickinson HO, Aitkin M, Craft AW. Stillbirths among off-spring of male radiation workers at Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. Lancet 1999;354:1407–14.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doll R, Evans HJ, Darby SC. Patemal exposure not to blame. Nature 1994;367:678–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inskip H. Stillbirth and paternal preconceptional radiation exposure. Lancet 1999;354:1400–1.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qiu J, Hales BF, Robaire B. Damage to rat spermatozoal DNA after chronic cyclophosphamide exposure. Biol Reprod 1995;53:1465–73.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qiu J, Hales BF, Robaire B. Effects of chronic low-dose cyclophosphamide exposure on the nuclei of rat spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 1995;52:33–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trasler JM, Hales BF, Robaire B. A time-course study of chronic paternal cyclophosphamide treatment in rats: effects on pregnancy outcome and the male reproductive and hematologic systems. Biol Reprod 1987;37:317–26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trasler JM, Hales BF, Robaire B. Chronic low dose cyclophosphamide treatment of adult male rats: effect on fertility, pregnancy outcome and progeny. Biol Reprod 1986;34:275–83.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trasler JM, Hales BF, Robaire B. Paternal cyclophosphamide treatment of rats causes fetal loss and malformations without affecting male fertility. Nature 1985;316:144–46.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hales BF, Crosman K, Robaire B. Increased postimplantation loss and malformations among the F2 progeny of male rats chronically treated with cyclophosphamide. Teratology 1992;45:671–78.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR. Relation of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 1980;210:1131–33.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cummins JM. Mitochondrial DNA: implications for the genetics of human male fertility. In: Barratt CL, De Jonge CJ, Mortimer D, Parinaud J, eds. Genetics of human male infertility. Paris: Editions EDK, 1997:287–307.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cummins JM, Jequier AM, Kan R. Molecular biology of human male infertility: links with aging, mitochondrial genetics, and oxidative stress? Mol Reprod Dev 1994;37:345–62.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simerly C, Wu GJ, Zoran S, Ord T, Rawlins R, Jones J, et al. The patemal inheritance of the centrosome, the cell’s microtubule-organizing center, in humans, and the implications for infertility. Nat Med 1995;1:47–52.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Evenson DP. Flow cytometry of acridine orange stained sperm is a rapid and practical method for monitoring occupational exposure to genotoxicants. Prog Clin Biol Res 1986;207:121–32.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bianchi PG, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Bianchi U, Sakkas D. Effect of deoxyribonucleic acid protamination on fluorochrome staining and in situ nick-translation of murine and human mature spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 1993;49:1083–88.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gorczyca W, Traganos F, Jesionowska H, Darzynkiewicz Z. Presence of DNA strand breaks and increased sensitivity of DNA in situ to denaturation in abnormal human sperm cells: analogy to apoptosis of somatic cells. Exp Cell Res 1993;207:202–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manicardi GC, Bianchi PG, Pantano S, Azzoni P, Bizzaro D, Bianchi U, et al. Presence of endogenous nicks in DNA of ejaculated human spermatozoa and its relationship to chromomycin A3 accessibility. Biol Reprod 1995;52:864–67.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 deoxynucJeotidyl transferase assay. J Androl 1995;16:80–87.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foresta C, Indino M, Mioni R, Scanelli G, Scandellari C. Evidence of sperm nuclear chromatin heterogeneity in ex-cryptorchid subjects. Andrologia 1987;19:148–52.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bianchi PG, Manicardi GC, Urner F, Campana A, Sakkas D. Chromatin packaging and morphology in ejaculated human spermatozoa: evidence of hidden anomalies in normal spermatozoa. Mol Hum Reprod 1996;2:139–44.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sun JG, Jurisicova A, Casper RF. Detection of deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation in human sperm: correlation with fertilization in vitro. Biol Reprod 1997;56:602–7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lopes S, Sun JG, Jurisicova A, Meriano J, Casper RF. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation is increased in poor-quality semen sampies and correlates with failed fertilization in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1998;69:528–32.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Host E, Lindenberg S, Kahn JA, Christensen F. DNA strand breaks in human sperm cells: a comparison between men with normal and oligozoospermic sperm sampies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:336–39.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Esterhuizen AD, Franken DR, Lourens JG, Prinsloo E, van Rooyen LH. Sperm chromatin packaging as an indicator of in-vitro fertilization rates. Hum Reprod 2000;15:657–61.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Irvine DS, Twigg JP, Gordon EL, Fulton N, Milne PA, Aitken RJ. DNA integrity in human spermatozoa: relationships with semen quality. J Androl 2000;21:33–44.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sakkas D, Urner F, Bianchi PG, Bizzaro D, Wagner I, Jaquenoud N, et al. Sperm chromatin anomalies can influence decondensation after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1996;11:837–43.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoshi K, Katayose H, Yanagida K, Kimura Y, Sato A. The relationship between acridine orange fluorescence of sperm nuclei and the fertilizing ability of human sperm. Fertil Steril 1996;66:634–39.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bizzaro D, Manicardi GC, Bianchi PG, Bianchi U, Mariethoz E, Sakkas D. In-situ competition between protamine and fluorochromes for sperm DNA. Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4:127–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Twigg JP, Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Oxidative damage to DNA in human spermatozoa does not preclude pronucleus formation at intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1864–71.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ron-el R, Nachum H, Herman A, Golan A, Caspi E, Soffer Y. Delayed fertilization and poor embryonic development associated with impaired semen quality. Fertil Steril 1991;55:338–44.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chan SY, Tucker MJ, Leung CK, Leong MK. Association between human in vitro fertilization rate and pregnancy outcome: a possible involvement of spermatozoal quality in subsequent embryonic viability. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;19:357–73.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parinaud J, Mieusset R, Vieitez G, Labal B, Richoilley G. Influence of sperm parameters on embryo quality. Fertil Steril 1993;60:888–92.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Filatov MV, Semenova EV, Vorob’ eva OA, Leont’ eva OA, Drobchenko EA. Relationship between abnormal sperm chromatin packing and IVF results. Mol Hum Reprod 1999;5:825–30.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Janny L, Menezo YJ. Evidence for a strong paternal effect on human preimplantation embryo development and blastocyst formation. Mol Reprod Dev 1994;38:36–42.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Campana A, Sakkas D. Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? Hum Reprod 1998;13:1632–37.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sakkas D, Jaquenoud N, Leppens G, Campana A. Comparison of resultsafter in vitro fertilized human embryos are cultured in routine medium and in coculture on Vero cells: a randomized study. Fertil Steril 1994;61:521–25.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988;332:459–61.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jones GM, Trounson AO, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998;70:1022–29.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dumoulin JC, Coonen E, Bras M, van Wissen LC, Ignoul-Vanvuchelen R, Bergers-Jansen JM, et al. Comparison of in-vitro development of embryos originating from either conventional in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000;15:402–9.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blake M, Garrisi J, Tomkin G, Cohen J. Sperm deposition site during ICSI affects fertilization and development. Fertil Steril 2000;73:31–37.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG. Possible consequences of performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with sperm possessing nuclear DNA damage. Hum Fertil 2000;3:26–30.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1039–49.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spano M, Bonde JP, Hjollund HI, Kolstad HA, Cordelli E, Leter G. Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril 2000;73:43–50.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Matsuda Y, Tobari I. Chromosomal analysis in mouse eggs fertilized in vitro with sperm exposed to ultraviolet light (UV) and methyl and ethyl methane sulfonate (MMS and EMS). Mutat Res 1988;198:131–44.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Tomlinson M, Mandrioli M, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, et al. The use of density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1112–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denny Sakkas
  • Odette Moffatt
  • Mathew Tomlinson
  • GianCarlo Manicardi
  • Davide Bizzaro

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations