Hormonal Suppression Restores Fertility in Irradiated Mice from both Endogenous and Donor-Derived Stem Spermatogonia

Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Toxicological Sciences (Impact Factor: 3.85). 09/2010; 117(1):225-37. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq191
Source: PubMed


Irradiation interrupts spermatogenesis and causes prolonged sterility in male mammals. Hormonal suppression treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues has restored spermatogenesis in irradiated rats, but similar attempts were unsuccessful in irradiated mice, monkeys, and humans. In this study, we tested a stronger hormonal suppression regimen (the GnRH antagonist, acyline, and plus flutamide) for efficacy both in restoring endogenous spermatogenesis and in enhancing colonization of transplanted stem spermatogonia in mouse testes irradiated with a total doses between 10.5 and 13.5 Gy. A 4-week hormonal suppression treatment, given immediately after irradiation, increased endogenous spermatogenic recovery 1.5-fold, and 11-week hormonal suppression produced twofold increases compared with sham-treated irradiated controls. Furthermore, 10-week hormonal suppression restored fertility from endogenous surviving spermatogonial stem cells in 90% of 10.5-Gy irradiated mice, whereas only 10% were fertile without hormonal suppression. Four- and 11-week hormonal suppression also enhanced spermatogenic development from transplanted stem spermatogonia in irradiated recipient mice, by 3.1- and 4.8-fold, respectively, compared with those not given hormonal treatment. Moreover, the 10-week hormonal suppression regimen, but not a sham treatment, restored fertility of some 13.5-Gy irradiated recipient mice from donor-derived spermatogonial stem cells. This is the first report of hormonal suppression inducing recovery of endogenous spermatogenesis and fertility in a mouse model treated with anticancer agents. The combination of spermatogonial transplantation with hormonal suppression should be investigated as a treatment to restore fertility in young men after cytotoxic cancer therapy.

11 Reads
  • Source
    • "The suggestion that pre‐pubertal boys were less sensitive to the effects of chemotherapy (Schalet, 1981) led to the use of gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues prior to chemotherapy. While this possible method for protecting the testis from the effects of both chemotherapy and irradiation is still used today (Wang et al., 2010), it remains controversial. GnRH analogues are also commonly used in the control of prostate cancer, often administered in depot form, with the side‐effect of azoospermia. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Male reproductive potential continues to be adversely affected by many environmental, industrial and pharmaceutical toxins. Pre-emptive testing for reproductive toxicological (side-)effects remains limited, or even non-existent. Many products that come into direct contact with spermatozoa lack adequate testing for the absence of adverse effects, and numerous products that are intended for exposure to spermatozoa have only a general assumption of safety based on the absence of evidence of actual harm. Such assumptions can have unfortunate adverse impacts on at-risk individuals (e.g. couples who are trying to conceive), illustrating a clear need for appropriate up-front testing to establish actual 'sperm safety'. Methods: After compiling a list of general areas within the review's scope, relevant literature and other information was obtained from the authors' personal professional libraries and archives, and supplemented as necessary using PubMed and Google searches. Review by co-authors identified and eliminated errors of omission or bias. Results: This review provides an overview of the broad range of substances, materials and products that can affect male fertility, especially through sperm fertilizing ability, along with a discussion of practical methods and bioassays for their evaluation. It is concluded that products can only be claimed to be 'sperm-safe' after performing objective, properly designed experimental studies; extrapolation from supposed predicate products or other assumptions cannot be trusted. Conclusions: We call for adopting the precautionary principle, especially when exposure to a product might affect not only a couple's fertility potential but also the health of resulting offspring and perhaps future generations.
    Human Reproduction Update 03/2013; 19(suppl 1):i1-i45. DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmt008 · 10.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gonadotoxic therapies, particularly radiation and chemotherapy used in the treatment of cancer, are extremely damaging to spermatogenesis. They may result in prolonged or permanent oligospermia or azoospermia and consequent infertility. Transient oligo- or azoospermia is generally observed due to killing of the rapidly proliferating differentiating spermatogonia. High doses of some of these agents can also kill spermatogonial stem cells, but their sensitivity to killing by different agents varies with the species. Any surviving stem cells may repopulate the tubules and produce differentiating spermatogenic cells and restore fertility. However the kinetics of this process, which has been studied in mice, rats, monkeys, and humans, is generally gradual, again showing wide variation between species. There are no universal methods to enhance the regeneration of spermatogenesis from the surviving stem cells, but suppression of testosterone and possibly gonadotropins enhances the recovery process in rodents. An understanding of the mechanisms controlling this regenerative process and how the results might be applied to humans is needed. KeywordsSpermatogonia-Radiation-Chemotherapy-Stem cells-Regeneration
    Male Germline Stem Cells: Developmental and Regenerative Potential, 12/2010: pages 179-203;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ionizing radiation has been shown to arrest spermatogenesis despite the presence of surviving stem spermatogonia, by blocking their differentiation. This block is a result of damage to the somatic environment and is reversed when gonadotropins and testosterone are suppressed, but the mechanisms are still unknown. We examined spermatogonial differentiation and Sertoli cell factors that regulate spermatogonia after irradiation, during hormone suppression, and after hormone suppression combined with Leydig cell elimination with EDS. The results showed that the numbers and cytoplasmic structure of Sertoli cells are unaffected by irradiation; that only a few Aund spermatogonia and even fewer A1 spermatogonia remained and that immunohistochemical analysis showed that Sertoli cells still produced KITG and GNDF. Some of these cells expressed KIT-receptor, demonstrating that the failure of differentiation was not a result of the absence of the KIT system. Hormone suppression resulted in an increase in Aund spermatogonia within 3 days, a gradual increase in KIT-positive spermatogonia, and differentiation mainly to A3 spermatogonia after 2-weeks. KITLG protein expression did not change after hormone suppression indicating that it is not a factor in the stimulation. However, GDNF increased steadily after hormone suppression, which was unexpected since GDNF is supposed to promote stem spermatogonial self-renewal and not differentiation We conclude that the primary cause of block in spermatogonial development is not due to Sertoli cell factors such (KITLG\GDNF) or the KIT receptor. Since elimination of Leydig cells in addition to hormone suppression resulted in differentiation to the A3 stage within 1 week, Leydig cell factors were not necessary for spermatogonial differentiation.
    Reproduction 07/2013; 146(4). DOI:10.1530/REP-12-0494 · 3.17 Impact Factor
Show more


11 Reads
Available from