DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for spermatogenic failure 74 — screening already-approved drugs against its 2-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 74 maps to a 2-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 74 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
CLIC family member 1 (CLIC1) — CLIC1 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 mlidrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 4K0N · 1.25 Å · ligand MALONATE ION (MLI). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
A 1988 review of 8879 vasectomies performed by one physician over 24 years found 97 failures of all types. Among 5331 men who returned for at least two postoperative semen tests, there were 32 (0.60%) early overt failures, 61 (1.14%) technical failures involving persistent small numbers of sperm, and 4 (0.08%) late overt failures discovered because of a pregnancy at least four years after two azoospermic test results. Four failures were due to missed vasa deferentia; the rest were attributed to recanalisation.
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. The patients had a long history of failed treatments (153 cycles) with ejaculated sperm, from which no pregnancy ensued. Using testicular sperm, fertilisation rate was 73% versus 64% with ejaculated sperm (p=0.005), blastocyst development 62% versus 47% (p=0.010), implantation rate 27% versus 6% (p=0.000), clinical pregnancy 39% versus 10% (p=0.001), live birth delivery 28% versus 5% (p=0.005), and newborn rate 32% versus 5% (p=0.000). No significant differences were seen in embryo cleavage, high quality embryo rates, mean number of embryos transferred, or abortion rate. Cumulative pregnancy rate per initiated cycle with testicular sperm was 45%, live birth delivery rate 31.3%, and newborn rate 37.5% (32 newborns). No pregnancy or delivery complications or congenital anomalies were reported.
The vasectomy review is a single-surgeon series from 1988 and does not address spermatogenic failure as a disease. The TESA study is retrospective, with no randomisation, and the authors note the number of cycles needs to be increased for more definitive conclusions. Sperm DNA fragmentation was not measured in all patients.
What is still missing: prospective randomised trials comparing testicular sperm with ejaculated sperm in defined patient subgroups, routine measurement of sperm DNA fragmentation in all patients, and studies that stratify by specific causes of spermatogenic failure rather than by the clinical label of recurrent implantation failure.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
JAMA · 1988 · 46 citations
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)
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 &lt;5M/ml, none presented Y-chromosome microdeletions. Although we do not routinely perform SDF testing, 15 patients had previous SDF values (12, &gt;20%; 8, &gt;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
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.
