DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for spermatogenic failure 5 — 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 5 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 5 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
aurora kinase C (AURKC) — AURKC 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 2~{r},3~{s}drag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 6GR8 · 1.75 Å · ligand 1-[(2~{R},3~{S})-2-[[1,3-benzodioxol-5-ylmethyl(methyl)amino]methyl]-3-methyl-6-oxidanylidene-5-[(2~{S})-1-oxidanylpropan-2-yl]-3,4-dihydro-2~{H}-1,5-benzoxazocin-8-yl]-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)urea (F8Z). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
Medical therapy for primary spermatogenic failure remains largely ineffective. A 2011 review notes that no treatments, whether hormonal or antioxidant, have consistently demonstrated efficacy, and it has not been possible to reliably identify patients likely to benefit. The review states that idiopathic spermatogenic failure likely results from multiple discrete defects in sperm production that are as yet unidentified, and that empiric medical therapy has been largely replaced by assisted reproductive techniques.
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 compared to controls (q-value <0.05). The authors suggest this down-regulation may contribute to spermatogenic failure in Klinefelter syndrome, but state this possibility is worthy of further exploration.
Two 1988 papers report on 8879 consecutive vasectomies performed by one physician. Among 5331 men who returned for at least two postoperative semen tests, there were 97 failures of all types: 32 (0.60%) early overt failures, 61 (1.14%) technical failures involving persistence of small numbers of spermatozoa, and 4 (0.08%) late overt failures discovered as a result of pregnancy at least four years after two azoospermic test results. Four failures were due to missed vasa deferentia; the remainder were attributed to recanalisation.
A 2022 review states that basic semen analysis still has limitations in explaining the cause of male factor treatment failure, and that developing new sperm evaluation methods is needed to improve diagnostic tools and identify sperm defects. A 2013 study notes that future application of aCGH on single sperm might give information on sperm chromosome aberrations in infertile men and partners of couples with repeated failure during assisted reproduction. What is still missing is a clear understanding of the discrete molecular defects underlying idiopathic spermatogenic failure, validated biomarkers to identify patients who might benefit from specific therapies, and prospective trials that stratify patients by these defects rather than treating all men with primary spermatogenic failure as a single group.
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.
The lurking sperm. A review of failures in 8879 vasectomies performed by one physician
AbstractVasectomy techniques and failure rates vary among surgeons, and the criteria for failure are not often clearly defined. To help establish a yardstick for comparative purposes, a series of 8879 consecutive vasectomies performed with uniform technique over 24 years was reviewed. A subgroup of 5331 men who had returned for at least two postoperative semen tests--the study group--was used for follow-up analysis. Failures were defined as early or late and also were categorized as overt or technical according to the numbers, motility, or persistence of the remaining spermatozoa. There were 97 failures of all types, including 32 (0.60%) early and overt failures and 61 (1.14%) technical failures that involved the persistence of small numbers of spermatozoa, possibly of no significance. Four (0.08%) late overt failures were also seen; each of these was discovered as a result of a pregnancy, and each occurred at least four years after two azoospermic test results. Of the 97 failures, four were recognized as due to missed vasa deferentia, and the remainder were attributed to recanalization. Whether improved and reproducible failure rates can be consistently obtained by other techniques is not yet clear.
AbstractVasectomy techniques and failure rates vary among surgeons, and the criteria for failure are not often clearly defined. To help establish a yardstick for comparative purposes, a series of 8879 consecutive vasectomies performed with uniform technique over 24 years was reviewed. A subgroup of 5331 men who had returned for at least two postoperative semen tests—the<i>study</i>group—was used for follow-up analysis. Failures were defined as<i>early</i>or<i>late</i>and also were categorized as overt or<i>technical</i>according to the numbers, motility, or persistence of the remaining spermatozoa. There were 97 failures of all types, including 32 (0.60%) early and overt failures and 61 (1.14%) technical failures that involved the persistence of small numbers of spermatozoa, possibly of no significance. Four (0.08%) late overt failures were also seen; each of these was discovered as a result of a pregnancy, and each occurred at least four years after two azoospermic test results. Of the 97 failures, four were recognized as due to missed vasa deferentia, and the remainder were attributed to recanalization. Whether improved and reproducible failure rates can be consistently obtained by other techniques is not yet clear. (<i>JAMA</i>1988;259:3142-3144)
ICSI using testicular spermatozoa after failure of ICSI with ejaculated spermatozoa could be a good choice: A propensity score‐matched cohort study
AbstractBACKGROUND: Ejaculated spermatozoa are considered to possess a higher fertilisation potential than testicular spermatozoa. In selected cases, the use of testicular spermatozoa from non-azoospermic infertile men resulted in a higher implantation and pregnancy rate than the use of ejaculated spermatozoa. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate between couples with failed intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure using ejaculated spermatozoa who subsequently had an intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle with testicular spermatozoa and those who subsequently had an intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle with ejaculated spermatozoa. The secondary objective was to determine the indications for the use of testicular spermatozoa after intracytoplasmic sperm injection failure with ejaculated spermatozoa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of matched couples using propensity score matching analysis was performed. After an intracytoplasmic sperm injection failure (cycle_1), intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either ejaculated spermatozoa (ejaculated sperm group), or testicular spermatozoa (testicular sperm group), was performed (cycle_2). The matching was on intracytoplasmic sperm injection performed in cycle_1 according to spermatozoa used (testicular or ejaculated) in cycle_2. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the influence of sperm origin on cumulative live birth rate. Univariate analysis on parameters of cycle_1 was used to identify the prognostic factors to propose an intracytoplasmic sperm injection with testicular spermatozoa in case of cycle_1 failure. The study outcomes were live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate. RESULTS: Among the 6034 couples available, 63 were selected to constitute the testicular sperm group and 63 were selected by propensity score matching to constitute the ejaculated sperm group. After matching, the DNA fragmentation index was higher in the testicular sperm group (13.43% ± 9.65% vs. 8.93% ± 4.47%, p = 0.013); no significant difference was observed for the fertilisation rate, the number of obtained embryos, blastulation rate and frozen embryo rate. In cycle_2, the live birth rate was higher in the testicular group (22.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), as was the cumulative live birth rate (25.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.065). The prognostic factors identified for the proposal of intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure with testicular spermatozoa after intracytoplasmic sperm injection failure with ejaculated spermatozoa were: teratozoospermia, cryptozoospermia and high DNA fragmentation index. DISCUSSION: According to the present study and current knowledge, the use of testicular spermatozoa after failed intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure in non-azoospermic men could be proposed instead of sperm donation in case of high sperm DNA fragmentation index, cryptozoospermia and teratozoospermia. A good oocyte response to ovarian stimulation during the previous assisted reproductive technology attempt will increase the chance of success. Although the main limitation of the current study is its retrospective nature, the use of the propensity score matching to perform causal inference study increases its reliability. CONCLUSION: The present study supports that the use of testicular spermatozoa outside the classical indication of azoospermia is a good option when the indication is well established. However, before proposing a testicular biopsy, an improvement in sperm characteristics should be considered by treating the causes of sperm alteration.
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.
IntechOpen eBooks · 2022 · 1 citations · open access
Semen Analysis and Infertility
AbstractMale factor infertility contribute approximately at 50% for the cause of infertility. The steady declination of semen quality in men for all over the world might be from various factors such as life style changes, environmental toxicity, dietary contribution and social problems. Assisted reproduction is the main treatment of choice for male infertility; However, in severe male factor infertility, the treatment outcomes could end up with recurrent implantation failure or recurrent pregnancy loss. Basic semen analysis still has limitation to explain the cause of failure for the part of male factors. The purposes of developing new sperm evaluation methods are to improve the diagnostic tools for identifying the sperm defects, appraise of fertility potential and provide suitable treatment for an infertile couple, explain the cause of treatment failure from male factor part and measure the efficacy of male contraception.
Human Reproduction · 2013 · 0 citations · open access
Session 69: Clinical endocrinology
AbstractLimitations, reason for caution: This study was mainly performed to optimize an aCGH protocol on human single sperm, not to have percentage of alterations in normal and pathological conditions. Wider implications of the findings: Future application of this method might give important information on the biology and pathophysiology of spermatogenesis and sperm chromosome aberrations in normal subjects and in patients at higher risk of producing unbalanced sperm, such as infertile men, carriers of karyotype anomalies, men with advanced age, subjects treated with chemotherapy, and partners of couples with repeated miscarriage and repeated failure during assisted reproduction techniques. Study funding/competing interest(s): University of Padova/no competing interests
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.
