ITEM VIEW

TUNEL assay and SCSA determine different aspects of sperm DNA damage

dc.contributor.authorHenkel R.
dc.contributor.authorHoogendijk C.F.
dc.contributor.authorBouic P.J.D.
dc.contributor.authorKruger T.F.
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-15T16:15:24Z
dc.date.available2011-05-15T16:15:24Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationAndrologia
dc.identifier.citation42
dc.identifier.citation5
dc.identifier.issn03034569
dc.identifier.other10.1111/j.1439-0272.2009.01002.x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/13320
dc.description.abstractSummary For the determination of sperm DNA damage, different assays are used. However, no further distinction is made and the literature generally speaks about DNA damage. Thus, this study aimed at comparing the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) and the TUNEL assay. In 79 patients, sperm DNA damage was determined flow cytometrically using the SCSA and the TUNEL assay. Moreover, normal sperm morphology was evaluated according to strict criteria. A statistical comparison of the two methods was performed using standard correlations, Bland and Altman plots, Passing-Bablok regressions and concordance correlation. Results show a significant difference between P- and G-pattern morphology only for the mean channel fluorescence of the SCSA. Spearman's rank correlations between the different parameters of both assays, SCSA and TUNEL, revealed significant associations between the parameters of the assays. However, when applying Bland and Altman plots, Passing-Bablok regression and concordance correlation results showed that these methods are not comparable. These different techniques determine different aspects of sperm DNA damage, i.e. 'real' DNA damage for the TUNEL assay and 'potential' DNA damage in terms of susceptibility to DNA denaturation for the SCSA. Thus, one should clearly distinguish between the different assays, not only practically and methodologically but also linguistically. © 2010 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectarticle
dc.subjectchromatin structure
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectDNA damage
dc.subjectDNA denaturation
dc.subjectflow cytometry
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectintermethod comparison
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmorphology
dc.subjectnick end labeling
dc.subjectsperm
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectChromatin
dc.subjectDNA Damage
dc.subjectDNA Fragmentation
dc.subjectFlow Cytometry
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectIn Situ Nick-End Labeling
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectSperm Count
dc.subjectSperm Motility
dc.subjectSpermatozoa
dc.titleTUNEL assay and SCSA determine different aspects of sperm DNA damage
dc.typeArticle
dc.description.versionArticle


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW