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: 4.33). 09/2010; 117(1):225-37. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq191
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [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 01/2013; 19(suppl 1):i1-i45. · 9.23 Impact Factor
  • [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; · 3.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hormone suppression given before or after cytotoxic treatment stimulates the recovery of spermatogenesis from endogenous and transplanted spermatogonial stem cells (SSC) and restores fertility in rodents. To test whether the combination of hormone suppression and transplantation could enhance the recovery of spermatogenesis in primates, we irradiated (7 Gy) the testes of 12 adult cynomolgus monkeys and treated six of them with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) for 8 weeks. At the end of this treatment, we transfected cryopreserved testicular cells with green fluorescent protein-lentivirus and autologously transplanted them back into one of the testes. The only significant effect of GnRH-ant treatment on endogenous spermatogenesis was an increase in the percentage of tubules containing differentiated germ cells (tubule differentiation index; TDI) in the sham-transplanted testes of GnRH-ant-treated monkeys compared with radiation-only monkeys at 24 weeks after irradiation. Although transplantation alone after irradiation did not significantly increase the TDI, detection of lentiviral DNA in the spermatozoa of one radiation-only monkey indicated that some transplanted cells colonized the testis. However, the combination of transplantation and GnRH-ant clearly stimulated spermatogenic recovery as evidenced by several observations in the GnRH-ant-treated monkeys receiving transplantation: (i) significant increases (~20%) in the volume and weight of the testes compared with the contralateral sham-transplanted testes and/or to the transplanted testes of the radiation-only monkeys; (ii) increases in TDI compared to the transplanted testes of radiation-only monkeys at 24 weeks (9.6% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.05) and 44 weeks (16.5% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.055); (iii) detection of lentiviral sequences in the spermatozoa or testes of five of the GnRH-ant-treated monkeys and (iv) significantly higher sperm counts than in the radiation-only monkeys. Thus hormone suppression enhances spermatogenic recovery from transplanted SSC in primates and may be a useful tool in conjunction with spermatogonial transplantation to restore fertility in men after cancer treatment.
    Andrology 09/2013; · 3.37 Impact Factor


Available from