Skip to main content

Les larges vacuoles des têtes spermatiques sont-elles associées à des altérations du noyau ou de l’acrosome du spermatozoïde ?

Is there a relationship between large vacuoles in spermatozoa and nucleus or acrosome alterations?

Résumé

Objectifs

Rechercher la présence d’altérations nucléaires ou acrosomiques dans les spermatozoïdes présentant des vacuoles occupant au moins 13 % de la surface de la tête des spermatozoïdes (spermatozoïdes dits de type 3), détectées à l’aide de la technique MSOME (motile sperm organelle morphology examination).

Matériel et méthodes

Notre étude a été effectuée sur des recueils de sperme de 20 hommes infertiles. Une évaluation de l’acrosome par immunomarquage à l’aide d’un anticorps monoclonal antiproacrosine (Mab4D4) a été associée à une détection de la fragmentation de l’ADN par la technique TUNEL. La condensation de la chromatine spermatique a été évaluée par une coloration au bleu d’aniline, et le taux d’aneuploïdie a été déterminé par hybridation in situ en fluorescence (FISH). Une observation des échantillons spermatiques par microscopie électronique à transmission (MET) [sperme entier] et confocale [spermatozoïdes de type 3 isolés] a complété ces analyses. Les résultats ont été comparés entre des spermatozoïdes provenant du sperme entier et des spermatozoïdes de type 3 isolés.

Résultats

Une augmentation significative de la proportion d’acrosomes anormaux a été constatée dans les spermatozoïdes isolés de type 3 par comparaison au sperme entier (77,8 ± 2,49 % vs 70,6 ± 2,62 %). La fragmentation de l’ADN a été observée de manière comparable dans les spermatozoïdes de type 3 et le sperme entier (14,5 ± 3,45 % vs 11,5 ± 1,25%), un défaut de condensation de la chromatine ainsi qu’une augmentation significative du taux d’aneuploïdie ont été retrouvés dans les spermatozoïdes isolés par comparaison à ceux provenant du sperme entier (50,4 ± 3,10 % vs 26,5 ± 2,60 % et 7,8 ± 1,98 % vs 1,3 ± 0,18 %). Les larges vacuoles sont à localisation nucléaire exclusive (MET et microscopie confocale).

Conclusion

Les vacuoles seraient en relation directe avec un défaut de maturation nucléaire survenant au cours de la spermiogenèse.

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to detect acrosome and nucleus alterations in isolated spermatozoa with large vacuoles detected by MSOME (Motile Sperm Organelle Morphology Examination), named type 3 spermatozoa and defined by the presence of one or more vacuoles occupying more than 13% of the sperm head area.

Material and methods

Twenty infertile men were included in this study. Whole sperm and isolated spermatozoa were compared. Spermatozoa acrosome and nucleus were explored using 1) proacrosin immunostaining with a monoclonal antibody (4D4), 2) DNA fragmentation with TUNEL assay, 3) chromatin condensation with aniline blue staining, and 4) aneuploidy after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and analysis by electron transmission and confocal microscopy.

Results

Acrosome abnormalities were significantly increased in type 3 spermatozoa compared towhole sperm(77.8 ± 2.49% vs. 70.6 ± 2.62%). DNA fragmentation was similar in type 3 spermatozoa compared towhole sperm(14.5 ± 3.45%vs. 11.5 ± 1.25%). Chromatin condensation was significantly altered in isolated spermatozoa as well as aneuploidy frequencies (50.4 ± 3.10% vs. 26.5 ± 2.60% and 7.8 ± 1.98% vs. 1.3 ± 0.18%). Large vacuoles have an exclusive nuclear location, confirmed by electron and confocal microscopy.

Conclusion

Large vacuoles are probably due to sperm nucleus maturation dysfunction during spermiogenesis.

Références

  1. 1.

    McLeod J, Gold RZ (1951) The male factor in fertility and infertility IV. Sperm morphology in fertile and infertile marriage. Fertil Steril 2:394–414

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    David G, Bisson P, Czyglick F, et al (1975) Anomalies morphologiques du spermatozoïde humain: proposition pour un système de classification. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 4:37–86

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Matalliotakis I, Panidis D, Vlassis G, et al (1996) The evaluation of morphological abnormalities of human spermatozoa in fertile and infertile men. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 66:65–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, et al (2002) Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod 17:503–15

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bartoov B, Eltes F, Pansky M, et al (1994) Improved diagnosis of male fertility potential via a combination of quantitative ultramorphology and routine semen analyses. Hum Reprod 9:2069–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mashiach R, Fish B, Eltes F, et al (1992) The relationship between sperm ultrastructural features and fertilizing capacity in vitro. Fertil Steril 57:1052–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Soffer Y, et al (1999) ART success and in vivo sperm cell selection depend on the ultramorphological status of spermatozoa. Andrologia 31:1–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, et al (2002) Real-time fine morphology of motile human sperm cells is associated with IVF-ICSI outcome. J Androl 23:1–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Saïdi R, Rives N, Gruel E, et al (2008) Nouvelle classification du spermocytogramme à fort grossissement. Med Reprod Gyn Endo 10:315–24

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Auger J, Eustache F (2000) Standardisation de la classification morphologique des spermatozoïdes humains selon la méthode de David modifiée. Andrology 10:353–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, et al (2010) World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update 16:231–45

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mitchell V, Rives N, Albert M, et al (2006) Outcome of ICSI with ejaculated spermatozoa in a series of men with distinct ultrastructural flagellar abnormalities. Hum Reprod 21:2065–74

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gallo JM, Escalier D, Grellier P, et al (1991) Characterization of a monoclonal antibody to human proacrosin and its use in acrosomal status evaluation. J Histochem Cytochem 39:273–82

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Angelopoulou R, Plastira K, Msaouel P (2007) Spermatozoal sensitive biomarkers to defective protaminosis and fragmented DNA. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 5:36

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Terquem A, Dadoune JP (1983) Aniline blue staining of human spermatozoa chromatin. Evaluation of nuclear maturation. In: Andre J (ed) The sperm cell. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, p 249

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Filatov MV, Semenova EV, Vorob’eva OA, et al (1999) Relationship between abnormal sperm chromatin packing and IVF results. Mol Hum Reprod 5:825–30

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hofmann N, Hilscher B (1991) Use of aniline blue to assess chromatin condensation in morphologically normal spermatozoa in normal and infertile men. Hum Reprod 6:979–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hammadeh ME, Zeginiadov T, Rosenbaum P, et al (2001) Predictive value of sperm chromatin condensation (aniline blue staining) in the assessment of male fertility. Arch Androl 46:99–104

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Downie SE, Flaherty SP, Matthews CD (1997) Detection of chromosomes and estimation of aneuploidy in human spermatozoa using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 3:585–98

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rives N, Mousset-Siméon N, Sibert L, et al (2004) Chromosome abnormalities of spermatozoa. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32:771–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kacem O, Sifer C, Barraud-Lange V, et al (2010) Sperm nuclear vacuoles, as assessed by motile sperm organellar morphological examination, are mostly of acrosomal origin. Reprod Biomed Online 20:132–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Franco JG Jr, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, et al (2008) Significance of large nuclear vacuoles in human spermatozoa: implications for ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 17:42–5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Benchaib M, Braun V, Lornage J, et al (2003) Sperm DNA fragmentation decreases the pregnancy rate in an assisted reproductive technique. Hum Reprod 18:1023–8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sergerie M, Bleau G, Teulé R, et al (2005) Sperm DNA integrity as diagnosis and prognosis element of male fertility. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 33:89–101

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cohen-Bacrie P, Belloc S, Ménézo Y, et al (2009) Correlation between DNA damage and sperm parameters: a prospective study of 1,633 patients. Fertil Steril 91:1801–5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Tesarik J, Greco E, Mendoza C (2004) Late, but not early, paternal effect on human embryo development is related to sperm DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod 19:611–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Morel F, Mercier S, Roux C, et al (1998) Interindividual variations in the disomy frequencies of human spermatozoa and their correlation with nuclear maturity as evaluated by aniline blue staining. Fertil Steril 69:1122–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, et al (2003) Pregnancy rates are higher with intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection than with conventional intracytoplasmic injection. Fertil Steril 80:1413–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bach M, Neyer A, Stecher A, et al (2007) Morphological integrity of human sperm nuclei and blastocyst formation after intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection. Abstracts of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Lyon, France O-273

  30. 30.

    Antinori M, Licata E, Dani G, et al (2008) Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online16:835–41

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Ellenbogen A, et al (2006) Does the presence of nuclear vacuoles in human sperm selected for ICSI affect pregnancy outcome? Hum Reprod 21:1787–90

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vanderzwalmen P, Hiemer A, Rubner P, et al (2008) Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. Reprod Biomed Online 17:617–27

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Rives.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Travers, A., Perdrix, A., Legrand, F. et al. Les larges vacuoles des têtes spermatiques sont-elles associées à des altérations du noyau ou de l’acrosome du spermatozoïde ?. Basic Clin. Androl. 20, 247–256 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-010-0091-2

Download citation

Mots clés

  • Aneuploïdie
  • Chromatine
  • MSOME
  • Spermatozoïdes
  • Vacuoles

Keywords

  • Aneuploidy
  • Chromatin
  • MSOME
  • Spermatozoa
  • Vacuoles