3.9 Article

CA repeat and RsaI polymorphisms in ERβ gene are not associated with infertility in Indian men

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 81-87

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00821.x

Keywords

CA repeat; oestrogen receptor beta gene; male infertility; polymorphism; RsaI

Categories

Funding

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
  2. Indian Council of Medical Research, Government of India, New Delhi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oestrogen Receptor beta (ER beta) gene plays an important role in the regulation of fertility in both males and females. Polymorphism in CA repeat located in the flanking region of ER beta has been shown to be associated with several diseases, but its association with male infertility has not been analysed so far. However, RsaI polymorphism (rs1256049) in exon 5 of ER beta has been shown to be associated with male infertility in Caucasian patients. Hence, we have analysed 695 Indian men, including 443 infertile and 252 fertile men to evaluate the association of CA repeat length and RsaI polymorphisms in male infertility. Our results revealed no significant difference in the distribution of CA repeat length between infertile (mean +/- SD 23.24 +/- 2.06, median 24) and fertile men (mean +/- SD 23.16 +/- 2.27, median 24). The analysis of dosage effect by classifying samples into SS (short/short), SL (short/long) and LL (long/long) groups also did not show any significant difference between infertile and fertile men. Similarly, RsaI polymorphism also did not show any significant difference between infertile and fertile men. Furthermore, the combined analysis of CA repeat and RsaI polymorphisms by haplotyping showed that the distribution of haplotypes was not significantly different between fertile and infertile men. Our results suggest that CA repeat length and RsaI polymorphisms in ER beta are not associated with infertility in Indian men.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available