Potential Male Contraceptive Homes in on Testes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Unmooring sperm from their source of nourishment in the testis might become the basis for a form of male contraception. Researchers have designed a compound that homes in on the testis and prevents sperm from accessing a key tissue, halting their development. In mice that were fed the compound, fertility dropped to zero after a few weeks without causing the animals noticeable harm.

The first generation of male contraceptives will likely employ hormones to block spermatic development. Such products are currently undergoing extensive clinical testing. But for men who don't want to alter their sex hormones over the long haul, researchers are exploring a variety of nonhormonal options based on sperm biology. One avenue involves protein-based adherens junctions, which allow sperm to attach to specialized cells in the testes. Similar to the brain, the testes do not allow blood to flow inside. To make up for the lack of circulatory nourishment, sperm cells adhere to so-called Sertoli cells, which provide the nutrients a growing sperm needs to reach maturity.

Biomedical researchers at the Population Council identified a compound that interferes with adherens junctions. Initially, some rodents that were fed the drug, dubbed Adjudin, experienced inflamed livers and muscle deterioration. In a Nature Medicine paper published online October 29 the researchers report they linked Adjudin to an engineered version of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), a sex hormone recognized by receptors found only on the Sertoli cells. That way the Adjudin is dragged with FSH directly to the testes and spends less time circulating in the rest of the body, says senior team member Yan Cheng. As a result, much less of the compound is needed to reduce fertility in rodents, the group reports. The drug still needs several years of animal testing before a human trial is conceivable, Cheng says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"It's certainly an imaginative and interesting approach, and potentially opens a new area in thinking about male contraception," says reproductive endocrinologist William Bremner of the University of Washington. Other nonhormonal approaches to male contraception target different aspects of the sperm's life cycle, such as by nullifying their ability to swim or attach to eggs, or by using a small plug to physically block their ejaculation. All these methods are in early stages of development and would require primate and human studies to prove their safety and efficacy, says Bremner. "That's potentially doable," he adds.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe