DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for spermatogenic failure 21 — screening already-approved drugs against its 1-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleSpermatogenic failure 21 maps to a 1-gene Open Targets module — the target space DeCure's AI scientist screens approved drugs against.
DeCure.ai methodSignature reversal (LINCS) plus network proximity (STRING) rank already-approved drugs likely to perturb this module — the same engine that produces DeCure.ai's repurposing hypotheses.
Repurposing thesisScreening approved medicines against this disease module, then publishing the evidence for the strongest candidate. Known pharmacology and human exposure data make the first question sharper — they do not establish safety or efficacy in a new indication.
Research record
01
ResearchComing soon
Candidate research + dossier — target rationale, drug-repurposing thesis and evidence pack.proof: Published dossier + on-chain hash
02
ValidationComing soon
In-vitro biological validation at a contract research org (CRO).proof: CRO contract + in-vitro report
03
Peer review & paperComing soon
Peer-reviewed paper published open-access (preprint + journal).proof: DOI + open-access link + on-chain hash
Current lead
No approved-drug candidate for spermatogenic failure 21 is corroborated in the literature DeepSearch retrieved. Some conditions are managed with non-pharmacological care — a device, surgery or physical therapy — rather than a medicine; that may be the case here, or the literature we found may simply be too sparse yet to support a drug-repurposing angle.
Molecular view
bromodomain testis associated (BRDT) — BRDT is one of the genes genetically linked to this disease in Open Targets — shown as context, not as a drug target we're pursuing: no approved-drug candidate for this disease is yet corroborated in the literature we found.
Loading structure…
helix sheet {3-ethyl-5-[(2sdrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 4KCX · 2.0 Å · ligand 3-[({3-ethyl-5-[(2S)-2-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperidin-1-yl]pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-yl}amino)methyl]-1-hydroxypyridinium (1QK). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
Medical therapy for primary spermatogenic failure has not shown consistent efficacy. A 2011 review states that treatment with hormones or antioxidants has been attempted, but no treatments have consistently demonstrated benefit, and it has not been possible to reliably identify patients likely to respond. The review notes that idiopathic spermatogenic failure probably results from multiple unidentified defects in sperm production, and that empiric medical therapy has been largely replaced by assisted reproductive techniques.
A 2022 study of 127 treatment cycles in 63 patients with recurrent implantation failure compared outcomes using testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) versus ejaculated sperm from the same patients. With testicular sperm, rates were higher for fertilisation (73% vs 64%), blastocyst development (62% vs 47%), implantation (27% vs 6%), clinical pregnancy (39% vs 10%), live birth delivery (28% vs 5%), and newborn rate (32% vs 5%). No congenital anomalies were reported among 32 newborns. The authors caution that the number of cycles needs to be increased for more definitive conclusions, and that the women had diverse conditions making subgrouping difficult.
A 2020 case-control study of 10 patients with Klinefelter syndrome and 10 controls found that the GPR56 gene was down-regulated by -2081-fold in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with Klinefelter syndrome. The authors suggest this down-regulation may contribute to spermatogenic failure in these patients, but state this possibility is worthy of further exploration.
What is still missing: larger trials with consistent patient stratification, routine sperm DNA fragmentation testing in studies of testicular sperm use, and functional studies to determine whether GPR56 down-regulation is a cause or consequence of spermatogenic failure in Klinefelter syndrome.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Asian Journal of Andrology · 2011 · 57 citations · open access
Medical therapy for spermatogenic failure
AbstractMedical treatment of men with primary spermatogenic failure remains largely ineffective in contrast to those with secondary testicular failure. Treatment has been attempted with a multitude of agents ranging from hormones to nutritional supplements (antioxidants). While some studies have demonstrated benefit to some treatments, no treatments have consistently demonstrated efficacy nor has it been possible to reliably identify patients likely to benefit. Idiopathic spermatogenic failure likely results from multiple discrete defects in sperm production that are as yet unidentified. A better understanding of these defects will yield more effective treatment options and appropriate triage of patients to specific therapeutic regimens. This review focuses on the rationale and current evidence for hormonal and antioxidant therapy in medical treatment of male infertility, spermatogenic failure in particular. Although empiric medical therapy for spermatogenic failure has been largely replaced by assisted reproductive techniques, both treatment modalities could play a role, perhaps as combination therapy.
Human Reproduction · 2022 · 2 citations · open access
P-064 Clinical outcomes of 127 patients with recurrent implantation failure treated with testicular sperm aspiration (TESA)
AbstractAbstract Study question Are the embryological, clinical and newborn outcomes using aspirated testicular sperm improved in cases with recurrent implantation failure previously treated with ejaculated sperm? Summary answer Aspirated testicular sperm enabled to obtain significant higher embryological, clinical and newborn outcomes in cases with recurrent implantation failure previously treated with ejaculated sperm. What is known already High levels of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) were associated to poor clinical outcomes (1-Simon et al., 2017). Testicular sperm display lower SDF than ejaculated sperm (2-Sakas and Alvarez, 2010), improving clinical outcomes in cases with abnormal semen parameters (3-Awaga et al., 2018; 4-Kang et al., 2018), recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and pregnancy loss (RPL) (5-Esteves et al., 2017), and elevated SDF (6-Ambar et al., 2021). As only a few studies are specifically dedicated to RIF, we expanded the number of cases and first provided full demographic, stimulation, embryological, clinical and newborn outcomes. References 1-(https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.182822); 2-(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.046); 3-(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.017); 4-(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26280-0); 5-(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.018); 6-(https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.200084 Study design, size, duration We retrospectively evaluated during consecutive years (2010-2020) 63 patients with recurrent implantation failure, which accepted to perform testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) as an alternative treatment. These patients presented a long history of failed treatments (153 cycles) using ejaculated sperm. From these cycles, no pregnancy ensued. The present study compares 127 treatment cycles, 80 with testicular sperm (17 cases repeated TESA) and 47 with ejaculated sperm from the same patients performed at the present IVF clinic. Participants/materials, setting, methods Patients were screened for karyotype abnormalities, for Y-chromosome microdeletions (7-Gonçalves et al., 2016), and for SDF with the TUNEL assay (8-Sá et al., 2015). Conventional semen analysis was performed according to World Health Organization guidelines (9-WHO, 2010). Male evaluation and TESA was performed by the same experienced urologist (LF) according to established protocols (10-Madureira et al 2014). The procedure was performed entirely on an outpatient basis, with no complications reported. References 7-(https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.172827); 8-(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.019); 9-(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44261); 10-(https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2014.00231.x). Main results and the role of chance The mean ages were 35.5±3.4 (26-42)-female and 38.1±5.7 (29-59)-male. There were 4 abnormal karyotypes (3-female, 1-male), all without known relevance. Most cases had asthenozoospermia and teratozoospermia (65.1%), or oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (41.8%). Of the 19 cases with <5M/ml, none presented Y-chromosome microdeletions. Although we do not routinely perform SDF testing, 15 patients had previous SDF values (12, >20%; 8, >36%). Female basal characteristics and testicular evaluation were under normal values. The TESA procedure took about 15-20 min, and the time of laboratorial search around 30-60 min. Cases using testicular sperm showed significant higher rates of fertilization (64% vs 73%-p=0.005), blastocyst development (47% vs 62%-p=0.010), implantation (6% vs 27%-p=0.000), clinical pregnancy (10% vs 39%-p=0.001), live birth delivery (5% vs 28%-p=0.005) and newborn (5% vs 32%-p=0.000) than ejaculated sperm. No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of embryo cleavage (95% vs 94.8%) and high quality embryos (89.4% vs 94%), in the mean number of transferred embryos (1.8±0.4 vs 1.9±0.4), or in the abortion rate (2 cases-50% vs 7 cases-25.9%). Cases using testicular sperm had 22 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, enabling per initiated cycle a cumulative pregnancy rate of 45%, live birth delivery rate of 31.3% and newborn rate of 37.5% (32 newborn). Limitations, reasons for caution Although presenting the higher number of cycles using TESA in the treatment of RIF, this number needs to be increased for drawing more definitive conclusions, as these women present a diversity of conditions, rendering subgrouping difficult. In the future, it would also be important to evaluate SDF in all cases. Wider implications of the findings In conclusion, the present results gave further evidence for the superiority of using testicular sperm instead of ejaculated sperm in cases with recurrent implantation failure. Data also evidences the security of using testicular sperm aspiration, as there were no pregnancy or delivery complications, or congenital anomalies among the 32 newborn. Trial registration number Not Applicable
GPR56 gene down-regulation in patients with Klinefelter syndrome: a candidate for infertility?
AbstractBACKGROUND: The etiology of azoospermia in patients with Klinefelter Syndrome (KS) is still unknown. The protein codified by the G protein-couple receptor 56 (GPR56) belongs to the adhesion family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPRs). Its mutations are involved in the pathogenesis of intellectual disability and, according to animal studies, infertility. As the expression of GPR56 in patients with KS has not been investigated so far, this study was undertaken with the purpose of evaluating its expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients with KS and normal controls. METHODS: This age-matched case-control study was performed in 10 patients with KS and 10 controls. Patients and controls underwent to blood sampling for next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis, and differentially expressed mRNAs were identified using DESeq2 v.1.12. QRT-PCR was used to validate the results obtained by NGS analysis. TaqMan Gene Expression Assay primers were used to carry out the real-time PCR analysis for GPR56. RESULTS: GPR56 was down-regulated by -2081-fold (q-value <0.05) in PBMCs of patients with KS compared to controls. NGS data were confirmed by QRT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The possible contribution of the GPR56 gene down-regulation in the pathogenesis of spermatogenic failure in patients with KS is worthy to be further explored.
Disease module: DeepOracle (Open Targets). Structures: RDKit from PubChem SMILES. Literature: retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works (targeted per-candidate search), resolved on OpenAlex.
DeCure is a research and publication project, not medical advice and not a treatment. "DeCure for X" describes a research goal, not a claim that a cure exists. Backing a cure is a contribution to fund the research — it is not an investment, and confers no yield, royalty, equity or IP ownership. Papers are published open-access by the DeCure.ai DAO.
