Search

This review surveys the causes and consequences of DNA damage in the male germ line from spermatogonial stem cells to fully differentiated spermatozoa. Within the stem cell population, DNA integrity is well maintained as a result of excellent DNA surveillance and repair; however, a progressive increase in background mutation rates does occur with paternal age possibly as a result of aberrant DNA repair as well as replication error. Once a germ cell has committed to spermatogenesis, it responds to genetic damage via a range of DNA repair pathways or, if this process fails, by the induction of apoptosis. When fully‐differentiated spermatozoa are stressed, they also activate a truncated intrinsic apoptotic pathway which results in the activation of nucleases in the mitochondria and cytoplasm; however, the physical architecture of these cells prevents these enzymes from translocating to the nucleus to induce DNA fragmentation. Conversely, hydrogen peroxide released from the sperm midpiece during apoptosis is able to penetrate the nucleus and induce DNA damage. The base excision repair pathway responds to such damage by cleaving oxidized bases from the DNA, leaving abasic sites that are alkali‐labile and readily detected with the comet assay. As levels of oxidative stress increase and these cells enter the perimortem, topoisomerase integrated into the sperm chromatin becomes activated by SUMOylation. Such activation may initially facilitate DNA repair by reannealing double strand breaks but ultimately prepares the DNA for destruction by nucleases released from the male reproductive tract. The abasic sites and oxidized base lesions found in live spermatozoa are mutagenic and may increase the mutational load carried by the offspring, particularly in the context of assisted conception. A variety of strategies are described for managing patients expressing high levels of DNA damage in their spermatozoa, to reduce the risks such lesions might pose to offspring health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prolonged lockdown of health facilities providing non‐urgent gamete cryopreservation—as currently recommended by many reproductive medicine entities and regulatory authorities due to the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic will be detrimental for subgroups of male infertility patients. We believe the existing recommendations should be promptly modified and propose that the same permissive approach for sperm banking granted for men with cancer is expanded to other groups of vulnerable patients. These groups include infertility patients (eg, azoospermic and cryptozoospermic) undergoing medical or surgical treatment to improve sperm quantity and quality, as well as males of reproductive age affected by inflammatory and systemic auto‐immune diseases who are about to start treatment with gonadotoxic drugs or who are under remission. In both scenarios, the "fertility window" may be transitory; postponing diagnostic semen analysis and sperm banking in these men could compromise the prospects of biological parenthood. Moreover, we provide recommendations on how to continue the provision of andrological services in a considered manner and a safe environment. Our opinion is timely and relevant given the fact that fertility services are currently rated as of low priority in most countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]