• Cytogenetic characteristics of men sperm from couples with recurrent miscarriage 
To content

Cytogenetic characteristics of men sperm from couples with recurrent miscarriage 

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2015.6(102):175–177 

Cytogenetic characteristics of men sperm from couples with recurrent miscarriage 

Dubinina V. G., Nosenko O. M., Golovatyuk K. P.

Odessa national medical University

Medical center reproductive health "Gameta", Odessa 

The article describes the results of cytogenetic study of the aneuploidies level and nature in men from couples with recurrent miscarriage. It is shown that these men characterized by the presence of 48.75% of patozoospermia signs; significantly greater percentage of the number of sperm aneuploidies within the sex chromosomes in 6.57 times, 18 chromosomes – in 13.00 times and chromosomes 13/21 – in 4.50 times; even in the presence of increased number of aneuploidies in 41.18% patients with normal semen viscosity and sperm motility; a higher percentage of sperm aneuploidy sex chromosomes in the presence of abnormal viscosity/mobility than men with normal levels of viscosity/mobility in 1.49 times. 

Key words: recurrent miscarriage, male, sperm, fluorescent hybridization in situ, chromosome, aneuploidy. 


1. Carrell DT. 2008. The clinical implementation of sperm chromosome aneuploidytesting: pitfalls and promises. J. Androl. 29;2:124–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.107.003699; PMid:17881765

2. Ghazaey S, Keify F, Mirzaei F et al. 2015. Chromosomal analysis of couples with Repeated Spontaneous Abortions in Northeastern {ran. Int. J. Fertil. 9;1:47–54.

3. Esteves SC. 2013. A clinical appraisal of the genetic basis in unexplained male infertility. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 6;3:176–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.121419.

4. Martinez G., Gillois P., Le Mitouard M. et al. 2013. FISH and tips: a large scale analysis of automated versus manual scoring for sperm aneuploidy detection.. Basic. Androl. 1;23:13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2051-4190-23-13.

5. Ramasamy R, Scovell JM, Kovac JR et al. 2015. Fluorescence in situ hybridization detects increased sperm aneuploidy in men with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil. Steril. 103;4:906–909.e1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.029.

6. Dada R, Thilagavathi J, Venkatesh S et al. 2011. Genetic testing in male infertility. Open Reprod. Sci. J. 3:42–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874255601103010042

7. Hwang K, Weedin JW, Lamb DJ. 2010. The use of fluorescent in situ hybridization in male infertility. Ther. Adv. Urol. 2;4:157–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756287210373758.

8. McInnes B, Rademaker A, Martin R. 1998. Donor age and the frequency of disomy for chromosomes 1, 13, 21 and structural abnormalities in human sperm using multicolour FISH. Hum. Reprod. 13:2489–2494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.9.2489; PMid:9806273

9. Ramasamy R, Besada S, Lamb DJ. 2014. Fluorescent in situ hybridization of human sperm: diagnostics, indications, and therapeutic implications. Fertil. Steril. 102;6:1534–1539. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014. 09.013.

10. Seli E, Sakkas D. 2005. Spermatozoal nuclear determinants of reproductive outcome: implications for ART. Hum. Reprod. Update. 11;4:337–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmi011; PMid:15863434.

11. Bernardini LM, Costa M, Bottazzi C et al. 2004. Sperm aneuploidy and recurrent pregnancy loss. Reprod. Biomed Online. 9;3:312–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62147-5

12. Collodel G, Giannerini V, Antonio Pascarelli N et al. 2009. TEM and FISH studies in sperm from men of couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. Andrologia 41;6:352–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.2009.00936.x; PMid:19891633.

13. Tempest HG, Martin RH. 2009. Cytogenetic risks in chromosomally normal infertile men. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 21;3:223–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32832947c2; PMid:19424064

14. Wettasinghe TK, Jayasekara RW, Dissanayake VH. 2010. Y chromosome microdeletions are not associated with spontaneous recurrent pregnancy loss in a Sinhalese population in Sri Lanka. Hum. Reprod. 25;12:3152–3156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq271.