ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026
Sperm DNA Fragmentation: The Concept and Its Use in Assisted Reproduction.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review investigates the decline in sperm DNA quality in humans and various animal species, with a focus on sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), its impact on reproductive outcomes, and its management in the context of assisted reproduction. The review underscores the significance of universally observed phenomena in human reproduction and proposes the application of insights gained from human studies to enhance reproductive strategies in animals and endangered species, where sperm quality research is limited and gametes for assisted reproduction are scarce.Universal aspects of the nature and origin of sperm DNA damage and repair are examined. It emphasizes the analysis of DNA breaks related to biological factors, such as histone-to-protamine exchange, oxidative stress, DNase activity, environmental pressures, and the unavoidable effects of iatrogenic DNA damage, particularly affecting processes related to assisted reproduction. The mechanisms underlying the repair of persistent DNA breaks that reach oocytes transported by sperm are also discussed.Methodologies for assessing SDF and differentiating between single- and double-stranded DNA breaks are explained. Various strategies to mitigate high levels of SDF in the ejaculate have been explored, and their potential applications in both humans and animal species have been discussed.A key conclusion is that SDF assessment offers valuable insights into semen quality, particularly in the era of assisted reproduction and specifically in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where traditional sperm parameters such as concentration, motility, and membrane quality evaluation are less critical. The causes of high SDF levels are multifactorial and complex, necessitating the establishment of standard protocols to control its negative effects on assisted reproduction. This is especially pertinent for endangered species, for which information on male fertility factors is limited. In humans, personalized treatment is essential to optimize the retrieval of high-quality gametes during fertilization. Similarly, assisted reproductive strategies for endangered species must be tailored to the specific sperm characteristics of each species. Various strategies to improve sperm DNA quality are now available, many of which are designed to mimic natural sperm behaviour shaped by evolutionary selection processes unique to each species. Exploring the synergistic effects of these strategies could enhance sperm availability and efficacy during fertilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41718874What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.