Rare & Orphan Lab · DeCure for X

DeCure for Spermatogenic failure 82

DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for spermatogenic failure 82 — 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 module1 genesLead labRare & Orphan
All cures
Rare & OrphanDOID:0070581$DeCureRare

The disease map

Disease moduleSpermatogenic failure 82 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 82 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.

What the evidence adds up to

No medical therapy for primary spermatogenic failure has consistently shown efficacy in controlled studies. A 2011 review states that treatment with hormones or antioxidants has not produced reproducible benefits, and that it has not been possible to reliably identify which patients might respond. The review notes that empiric medical therapy has largely been replaced by assisted reproductive techniques.

A 1988 study of 8879 vasectomies performed with a uniform technique found 97 failures overall. Among 5331 men who returned for at least two postoperative semen tests, there were 32 early overt failures (0.60%), 61 technical failures involving persistent small numbers of spermatozoa (1.14%), and 4 late overt failures (0.08%) discovered because of a pregnancy occurring at least four years after two azoospermic test results. Four failures were due to missed vasa deferentia; the rest were attributed to recanalisation.

A 2020 case-control study of 10 patients with Klinefelter syndrome and 10 controls found that GPR56 was down-regulated by -2081-fold in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of the patients compared to controls (q-value <0.05). The authors state that the possible contribution of this down-regulation to spermatogenic failure in Klinefelter syndrome is worthy of further exploration, but no therapeutic intervention was tested.

What is still missing is a clear molecular classification of the discrete defects that cause idiopathic spermatogenic failure, a reliable method to identify which patients might benefit from any given treatment, and adequately powered randomised trials of any drug or hormone regimen. For the GPR56 finding, no drug targeting this receptor has been studied in patients, and the clinical relevance of the observed gene expression change remains unknown.

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.

https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.63
JAMA · 1988 · 35 citations

The Lurking Sperm

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)

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03720210032024
Minerva Endocrinology · 2020 · 2 citations

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.

https://doi.org/10.23736/s0391-1977.20.03357-x

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.