4.6 Article

A genomics approach to females with infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 139, 期 5, 页码 605-613

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-020-02143-5

关键词

Primary ciliary dyskinesia; Primary infertility; Preimplantation embryonic lethality; Meiotic arrest; Fertilization failure; Recurrent pregnancy loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infertility affects 10% of reproductive-age women and is extremely heterogeneous in etiology. The genetic contribution to female infertility is incompletely understood, and involves chromosomal and single-gene defects. Our aim in this study is to decipher single-gene causes in infertile women in whom endocrinological, anatomical, and chromosomal causes have been excluded. Our cohort comprises women with recurrent pregnancy loss and no offspring from spontaneous pregnancies (RPL, n = 61) and those who never achieved clinical pregnancy and were referred for in vitro fertilization [primary infertility (PI), n = 14]. Whole-exome sequencing revealed candidate variants in 14, which represents 43% of those with PI and 13% of those with RPL. These include variants in previously established female infertility-related genes (TLE6, NLRP7, FSHR, and ZP1) as well as genes with only tentative links in the literature (NLRP5). Candidate variants in genes linked to primary ciliary dyskinesia (DNAH11 and CCNO) were identified in individuals with and without systemic features of the disease. We also identified variants in genes not previously linked to female infertility. These include one homozygous variant each in CCDC68, CBX3, CENPH, PABPC1L, PIF1, PLK1, and REXO4, which we propose as candidate genes for infertility based on their established biology or compatible animal models. Our study expands the contribution of single genes to the etiology of PI and RPL, improves the precision of disease classification at the molecular level, and offers the potential for future treatment and development of human genetics-inspired fertility regulators.

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