4.6 Article

The genetics of recurrent hydatidiform moles in China: correlations between NLRP7 mutations, molar genotypes and reproductive outcomes

Journal

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 17, Issue 10, Pages 612-619

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gar027

Keywords

recurrent hydatidiform mole; NLRP7; spontaneous abortion; founder effect; assisted reproductive technologies

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30973172, 30511120178]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province in China [Y2090403]
  3. Science and technology Department of Zhejiang Province [2009C14012]
  4. Canadian Institute of Health Research [MOP 86546]
  5. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec [5539]
  6. FRSQ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hydatidiform mole (HM) is a human pregnancy with abnormal embryonic development. NLRP7 is a major autosomal recessive gene responsible for recurrent molar pregnancies and associated reproductive wastage in patients from several populations. Here, we report NLRP7 mutation analysis in 35 unrelated Chinese patients with recurrent reproductive wastage, including at least one HM. We describe three new protein-truncating mutations in NLRP7 and show the presence of three founder mutations in China and Asian populations. We determined the parental contribution to six molar tissues and show the occurrence of three diploid androgenetic moles in patients with one defective allele, while three diploid biparental moles occurred in patients with two defective alleles. We document the failure of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in three patients with two defective alleles each and a successful pregnancy in one of two patients with one defective allele. Our data suggest that patients with a single defective allele have better reproductive outcomes than patients with two defective alleles, and some of them may benefit from ART.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available