ArticleBasic and clinical andrology2023
Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA
Article in Basic and clinical andrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Associations Between Demographic Characteristics, Lifestyle Factors, and Sperm Quality Among Men Presenting With Infertility Complaints.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Rho-kinase inhibition reduces DNA fragmentation in human sperm cryopreservation.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Article
- Sperm DNA fragmentation: how to test, when to test, and what to do with abnormal results-a pragmatic mini-review for clinical practice.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Comparing Methods for Sperm DNA Fragmentation Detection.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Evaluating the potential for sperm DNA fragmentation testing to guide the use of ICSI for couples with non-severe male infertility.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Enhancing Stallion Semen Cryopreservation: Selected Antioxidant Extracts and Sperm Freezability.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Age-related decline in behavior and reproductive health in male mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Redox-Driven Epigenetic Modifications in Sperm: Unraveling Paternal Influences on Embryo Development and Transgenerational Health.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Paternal age, de novo mutations, and offspring health? New directions for an ageing problem.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- DNA breakpoints and free DNA fragments as potential predictors of infertility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Genetic inference and single cell expression analysis of potential targets in heart failure and breast cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Longitudinal trends and correlation between autism spectrum disorder prevalence and sperm quality parameters (2000-2024): a comprehensive statistical analysis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSperm DNA integrity is increasingly seen as a critical characteristic determining reproductive success, both in natural reproduction and in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Despite this awareness, sperm DNA and nuclear integrity tests are still not part of routine examinations for either infertile men or fertile men wishing to assess their reproductive capacity. This is not due to the unavailability of DNA and sperm nuclear integrity tests. On the contrary, several relevant but distinct tests are available and have been used in many clinical trials, which has led to conflicting results and confusion. The reasons for this are mainly the lack of standardization between different clinics and between the tests themselves. In addition, the small number of samples analyzed in these trials has often weakened the value of the analyses performed. In the present work, we used a large cohort of semen samples, covering a wide age range, which were simultaneously evaluated for sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) using two of the most frequently used SDF assays, namely the TUNEL assay and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA®). At the same time, as standard seminal parameters (sperm motility, sperm morphology, sperm count) were available for these samples, correlations between age, SDF and conventional seminal parameters were analyzed.
resultsWe show that the SCSA® and TUNEL assessments of SDF produce concordant data. However, the SDF assessed by TUNEL is systematically lower than that assessed by SCSA®. Regardless of the test used, the SDF increases steadily during aging, while the HDS parameter (High DNA stainability assessed via SCSA®) remains unchanged. In the cohort analyzed, conventional sperm parameters do not seem to discriminate with aging. Only sperm volume and motility were significantly lower in the oldest age group analyzed [50-59 years of age].
conclusionsIn the large cohort analyzed, SDF is an age-dependent parameter, increasing linearly with aging. The SCSA® assessment of SDF and the flow cytometry-assisted TUNEL assessment are well correlated, although TUNEL is less sensitive than SCSA®. This difference in sensitivity should be taken into account in the final assessment of the true level of fragmentation of the sperm nucleus of a given sample. The classical sperm parameters (motility, morphology, sperm count) do not change dramatically with age, making them inadequate to assess the fertility potential of an individual.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.