Cover
Vol. 3 No. 2 (2013)

Published: December 31, 2013

Pages: 21-25

Research Article

Assessment and correlation of Anti-sperm antibodies to sperm parameters in normozoospermic men

Zaidoon H. Jabbar 1 Muhammad-Baqir M-R Fakhirldin 2
1High Institute of Infertility Diagnosis and ART, Al-Nahrain University
2Department of Clinical Reproductive Physiology, High Institute of Infertility Diagnosis and ART, Al-Nahrain University
History
  • Received: September 1, 2013
  • Available Online: December 1, 2013

Abstract

Background: The immune infertility caused by anti-sperm antibodies (ASAs) represented about 1020%- of infertility among the couples, the ASAs interfere with sperm parameters such as the sperm motility and sperm ability to penetrate cervical mucus, sperm-oocyte binding, and fertilization and embryo developments. Objectives: The present study designed to assess semen analysis, presence of ASAs and DNA fragmentation index as well as correlation within these parameters in normzoospermic Iraqi subjects Patients, Materials and Methods: A total number of Iraqi subjects (116) with range of age (2051-) years and their mean duration of infertility (4.70 ± 2.77). Seminal fluid for Macroscopic and Microscopic assessments done according to WHO 2010 criteria. The mixed agglutination reaction (MAR) test used to assess theirASAs in semen (direct method), seminal plasma and serum (indirect method); for the both IgG and IgA classes of antibodies and their distribution among different parts of spermatozoa as percentage. Results: The mean of IgG using direct method was (23.881.75±) and for indirect detection method the mean was (27.412.41±) with no significant difference (P<0.05) between the two methods. While the direct method for IgA detection mean (14.46 ±1.76) and the mean for indirect method of detection (6.860.39±) and there was significant difference (P>0.05) between the two methods. In addition to that, the distribution of IgG and IgA detected by direct method on sperm parts showed no significance difference except for the sperm tail; while the indirect method for IgA and IgG showed significant difference in distribution on sperm mid-piece. Conclusion: The correlation among sperm parameters and Immunoglobulin using direct and indirect methods showing variations in significance also in the correlation between the direct and indirect methods according to distributions on sperm surface

Keywords

References

  1. Mortimer D. Practical Laboratory Andrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994. Antisperm Antibodies; pp. 111-25.
  2. Hendry WF. <. Reprod Fertil Dev.1989; 1 (3): 205-220.
  3. Kremer J, Jager S. «The significance of antisperm antibodies for spermcervical mucus interaction». Autoimmunity. 1992; 7 (6): 781-784.
  4. de Rooij DGand Russell LD. Allyou wanted toknow about spermatogonia but were afraid to ask. Journal ofAndrology. 2000; 21, 776-798.
  5. Parslow JM, Poulton TA, Besser GM, et al. The clinical relevance of classes of immunoglobulins on spermatozoa from infertile and vasectomized males. Fertil Steril, 1985, 43: 621.
  6. Greco E, Romano S, lacobelli M, et al. ICSI in cases of sperm DNA damage: Beneficial effect or oral antioxidant treatment. Hum Reprod 2005; 20(9):2590-2594.
  7. World Health Organization. Reference values and semen nomenclature. In: WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. 5th. Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010.
  8. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955; 11:142
  9. Sinisi AA. Prevalence of antisperm antibodies by sperm MAR test in subjects undergoing a routine sperm analysis for infertility. Int. J. Androl. 1993; 16, 311-314.Jarow JP, Kirkland JA Jr, Assimos DG. Association of anti-sperm antibodies with chronic nonbacterial prostatitis. Urology 1990; 36 (2):154-156.
  10. Mazumdar S. and Levine AS. Antisperm antibodies: etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 70, 799810.
  11. Haas GG Jr, Cunningham ME. Identification of antibody-laden sperm by cytofluorometry. Fertil Steril. 1984; 42(4):606 613.
  12. Hantler E, Sharma R, Sharman D. Changes in cervical mucus that prevent penetration by spermatozoa. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1989; 43, 325336-.
  13. Rooney IA, Oglesby TJ, Atkinson JP. Complement in human reproduction: activation and control. Immunol. Res. 1993; 12, 276294-.
  14. Anderson DJ, Pudney J: Human male genital tract immunity and experimental models. In Mucosal Immunology, 3rd ed. J Mestecky, J Bienenstock, ME Lamm, L Mayer, JR McGhee, W Strober (eds). Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005, pp 16471659.
  15. Nagaria T, Patra PK, Jai Prakash S. Evaluation of Serum Antisperm Antibodies in Infertility. J Obset Gyn Ind. 2011, Pp. 308.
  16. Mestecky J, Russell MW, Elson CO. Perspective on mucosal vaccines: is mucosal tolerance a barrier? J Immunol 2007; 179:5633-5638.
  17. Woof JM and Mestecky J. Mucosal immunoglobulins. Immunol Rev 2005: 206:64-82.
  18. Moldoveanu Z, Huang W-Q, Kulhavy R, et al. Human male genital tract secretions: both mucosal and systemic immune compartments contribute to the humoral immunity. J Immunol 2005; 175:4127-4136
  19. Zouari R, De Almeida M, Rodrigues D. et al. Localization of antibodies on spermatozoa and sperm movement characteristics are good predictors of in vitro fertilization success in cases of male autoimmune infertility. Fertil. Steril. 1993: 59, 606-612.160.
  20. Plas E, Berger P, Hermann M, et al. effect of aging on male infertility. Experm. Geront. 2000; 35 (5). Pp. 543-551.
  21. Bohring C. and Krause W. Immune infertility: towards a better understanding of sperm autoimmunity. The value of proteomic analysis. Hum. Reprod.2003; (18): Pp.915-924.
  22. Russell MW, Lue C, van den Wall Bake AWL, et al. Molecular heterogeneity of human IgA antibodies during an immune response. Clin Exp Immunol 1992; 87:1-6.
  23. Huerta M, Aguilar RC, Hernández I, et al. Frequency and etiology of seminal infection in the study of infertile couples. Ginecologiay Obstetricia de Mexico, 2003; 70, pp. 90-94.
  24. Naz RK. Search for peptide sequences involved in human antisperm antibody-mediated male immunoinfertility by using phage display technology. Mol Reprod. Dev. 2005; 72, 25-30.
  25. Gubin DA, Dmochowski R. Kutteh WH. Multivariant analysis of men from infertile couples with and without antisperm anibodies. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2008; 39, 157-160.157.
  26. Tennakoon V, Yasawardene SG, Deepal WS. Antisperm antibodies: Incidence, isotypes and location on spermatozoa, their implications on fertilization and on pregnancy rate at a selected center in Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Joumal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2010; 32:8-16.
  27. Ford WCL, Wmiams KM, McLaughlin EA, et al. The indirect immunobead test for seminal antisperm antibodies and fertilization rates at in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11 (7). Pp.1418- 1422.
  28. ChiuVW. and Chamley LW. Clinical associations and mechanisms of action of anti-sperm antibodies. Fertil. Steril. 2004; 82, 529-535.