Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026

Step-specific Sorting of Mouse Spermatids by Flow Cytometry
Published on: December 31, 2015
Toxicity of thiotepa on mouse spermatogenesis as determined by dual-parameter flow cytometry
Abstract:
Multiparameter flow cytometry (FCM) measurements were made on acridine orange (AO)-stained mouse testicular cells and epididymal sperm cells to determine the effects of varying dosages of thiotepa (0-5 mg/kg ip daily X 5 days) on spermatogenesis at 7, 28, and 67 days after the last exposure (ALE). FCM multiparameter measurements included DNA stainability vs RNA content, peak amplitude vs integrated area of DNA fluorescent signal, and double-stranded DNA vs single-stranded DNA. Thiotepa exhibited dramatic damaging effects on the kinetics and/or cell kill of seven testicular cell types measured by dual-parameter flow cytometry. At 7 days ALE, one 4N cell type, likely the pachytene spermatocyte, was absent from the testes, and another was reduced by about 70%. By 28 days ALE, most of the germ cells were absent from the seminiferous tubules, and by 67 days ALE the testes were undergoing recovery of spermatogenesis with only half of the seminiferous tubules repopulated after treatment with 5.0 mg/kg. The dual parameters of DNA stainability vs RNA content provided better resolution of testicular cell types into distinct populations than the peak vs area processing of the green fluorescent signal of AO-stained cells. Dosage of thiotepa was significantly related to percentage of sperm head morphological abnormalities assayed by light microscopy. Utilizing the metachromatic properties of acridine orange, FCM measurements of the amount of single-stranded DNA induced within acid-stressed whole sperm or heat-stressed nuclei detected alterations of chromatin structure at the same minimal effective dose required to increase abnormal sperm head morphology. Epididymal sperm isolated from mice exposed to some concentrations of thiotepa had an increased percentage of free heads and tails. DNA in free heads denatured in situ to a greater extent than DNA in intact sperm.
Insights
Thiotepa significantly damages mouse spermatogenesis, affecting germ cell populations and sperm morphology. Recovery begins by 67 days, but repopulation is incomplete after high doses.
Area of Science:
- Reproductive toxicology
- Spermatogenesis
- Flow cytometry applications
Background:
- Thiotepa is a chemotherapeutic agent with known reproductive toxicity.
- Understanding its impact on spermatogenesis is crucial for risk assessment.
- Flow cytometry offers multiparametric analysis of cellular populations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effects of varying thiotepa dosages on mouse spermatogenesis.
- To assess the kinetics of cellular damage and recovery using flow cytometry.
- To correlate flow cytometry findings with sperm morphology and chromatin integrity.
Main Methods:
- Multiparameter flow cytometry (FCM) on acridine orange-stained testicular and sperm cells.
- Analysis of DNA stainability vs RNA content, DNA signal amplitude, and DNA strand states.
- Light microscopy for sperm head morphological abnormalities and assessment of free heads/tails.
Main Results:
- Thiotepa caused significant damage to seven testicular cell types, including pachytene spermatocytes.
- Germ cell depletion was observed by 28 days, with partial recovery by 67 days post-exposure.
- Increased sperm head abnormalities and free heads/tails correlated with thiotepa dosage.
Conclusions:
- Flow cytometry effectively resolves testicular cell populations and detects thiotepa-induced damage.
- Thiotepa disrupts spermatogenesis in a dose-dependent manner, with prolonged effects on recovery.
- FCM can detect chromatin alterations at doses equivalent to those causing morphological sperm defects.
More Related Videos
08:46A Standardized Approach for Multispecies Purification of Mammalian Male Germ Cells by Mechanical Tissue Dissociation and Flow Cytometry
Published on: July 12, 2017
09:41Functional Assessment of Kinesin-7 CENP-E in Spermatocytes Using In Vivo Inhibition, Immunofluorescence and Flow Cytometry
Published on: December 28, 2021