4.6 Article

Chromosomal translocations and semen quality: A study on 144 male translocation carriers

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 46-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.10.003

关键词

Chromosomal translocation; Karyotype; Male infertility; Semen quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research question: Chromosomal translocations are known genetic causes of male infertility. Are certain translocations or chromosomal regions more directly associated with sperm defects? Is there a threshold of sperm impairment that can be relevant for detection of translocations? Design: This is a monocentric retrospective observational study covering a 10-year period. Eighty-one patients carrying a reciprocal translocation (RCT) and 63 carrying a Robertsonian translocation (ROBT) were compared with 105 fertile patients. Semen quality before and after sperm migration was compared. The aims were to define whether a threshold based on sperm analysis could be proposed for detection of translocations and to identify whether some redundant chromosomal regions might be associated with sperm quality defects. Results: The number of progressive spermatozoa retrieved after sperm preparation (NPS-ASP) was altered in both RCT and ROBT carriers compared with controls, with a stronger alteration in ROBT. Based on the NPS-ASP results in this large group of translocation carriers, a relatively robust threshold, fixed at less than 5 million, may be proposed for detection of translocations. The alteration of NPS-ASP was independent of the chromosome involved in ROBT, while in RCT, four redundant chromosomal regions (1q21, 6p21,16q21,17q11.2) were associated with poor or very poor NPS-ASP. Conclusions: The NPS-ASP appears to be a good parameter to assess sperm function and would be a useful tool to detect chromosomal translocations. Four redundant regions have been identified on four chromosomes, suggesting that they may contain genes of interest to study sperm functions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据