Effects of adverse semen parameters on total oxidation status and DNA/chromatin integrity

African Journal of Urology

Table 2 Comparison of sperm DNA/chromatin integrity and anti-/oxidation status among different groups

Parameters	Experimental group I^a (n = 15)	Experimental group II^b (n = 13)	Experimental group III^c (n = 13)	Experimental group IV^d (n = 18)	Control group (n = 22)	P-value
CMA3	36.0 ± 1.40	37.23 ± 1.72	44.46 ± 2.19	–	27.36 ± 0.73	< 0.001 < 0.001 ^a,e,^{c,e b,e}
TB	77.07 ± 2.59	71.62 ± 3.65	71.92 ± 2.02	–	40.6 ± 2.63	< 0.001 < 0.001 ^a,e,^{c,e b,e}
TAC	4.49 ± 0.37	4.25 ± 0.26	3.68 ± 0.36	3.47 ± 0.29	7.38 ± 0.78	< 0.001 < 0.001 ^a,e,^{c,e b,e d,e}
TOS	10.6 ± 0.71	10.12 ± 1.27	9.74 ± 0.77	9.40 ± 0.82	4.60 ± 0.24	< 0.001 < 0.001 ^a,e,^{c,e b,e d,e}
TAC/TOS (OSI)	2.62 ± 0.30	2.59 ± 0.40	3.09 ± 0.54	3.10 ± 0.40	0.78 ± 0.09	< 0.001 < 0.001 ^a,e,^{c,e b,e d,e}

Data were not normally distributed (nonparametric) according to the Shapiro–Wilk test. Data were presented as Mean ± SEM. The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine if there are statistically significant differences between all groups and Mann–Whitney test was used to compare between two groups. Bold indicated that P < 0.05 was regarded as a significant value
CMA3 Chromomycin A3; TB Toluidine blue; TAC Total antioxidant capacity; TOS Total oxidant status; OSI Oxidative stress index
^aExperimental group I: Teratozoospermia
^bExperimental group II: Astheno-teratozoospermia
^cExperimental group III: Oligoasthenoteratozoospermia
^dExperimental group IV: Azoospermia
^eThe control group: Normozoospermia