4.4 Article

Evidence from enzymatic and meta-analyses does not support a direct association between USP26 gene variants and male infertility

Journal

ANDROLOGY
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 271-279

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/andr.295

Keywords

deubiquitinating enzyme activity; male infertility; meta-analysis; mutations; USP26

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30840035, 30970915]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Do men who carry mutations in USP26 have an increased risk of infertility? The association between mutations in USP26 gene and male infertility has been studied intensively. However, the results from different groups are controversial. In particular, biological function of the mutant proteins remains to be elucidated. In this study, we conducted a USP cleavage assay and a meta-analysis of the published literature (up to 31 May 2013) to evaluate the impact of five frequent mutations (NM_031907.1: c.363_364insACA, c.494T>C, c.1423C>T, c.1090C>T, c.1737G>A) on enzymatic activity of the USP26 and to assess the strength of the association between those mutations and male infertility. The USP cleavage assay showed that those mutations do not affect USP26 enzymatic activity. Moreover, the results of meta-analysis of ten case-control studies (in total 1716 patients and 2597 controls) revealed no significant association (P>0.05) between USP26 mutations and male infertility. The pooled ORs were 1.58 (95% CI: 0.81, 3.10) for cluster mutations (c.363_364insACA, c.494T>C, c.1423C>T), 1.60 (95% CI: 0.93, 2.74) for c.1090 C>T and 2.64 (95% CI: 0.97, 7.20) for c.1737G>A. Evidence from both enzymatic and meta-analyses does not support a direct association between USP26 variants and male infertility. Further research is necessary to study the biological function of USP26, which may provide clues as to the regulation of androgen receptor signalling.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available