4.5 Article

Pathogenic variants of ATG4D in infertile men with non-obstructive azoospermia identified using whole-exome sequencing

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 280-291

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.13995

关键词

apoptosis; ATG4D; autophagy; non-obstructive azoospermia; whole-exome sequencing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82001616, 82071697]
  2. Medical and Health Guidance Project of Xiamen [3502Z20199140]
  3. open project of NHC Key Laboratory of Family Planning and Healthy/key laboratory of reproductive medicine of Hebei province [SZ-202004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified ATG4D as a novel candidate gene associated with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) and suggested that autophagy-related cysteine peptidase family genes may play crucial roles in human spermatogenesis.
Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is the most severe form of male infertility, and it is primarily associated with genetic defects. We performed whole-exome sequencing of 236 patients with NOA and identified a homozygous pathogenic variant of autophagy-related 4D cysteine peptidase (ATG4D) in two siblings from a consanguineous family and compound heterozygous pathogenic variants of ATG4D in two sporadic cases. The expression of LC3B, a regulator of autophagic activity, was significantly decreased, and the apoptosis rate of spermatogenic cells in testicular tissues was increased. Transfection of GC-2spd cells with a ATG4D mutant plasmid (Flag-Atg4d(mut)) significantly decreased the expression level of Lc3b and increased the rate of apoptosis. Moreover, a pathogenic variant in X-linked ATG4A and compound heterozygous pathogenic variants of ATG4B were identified in one patient each. All novel variants were segregated by disease phenotype and were predicted to be pathogenic. Our findings revealed that autophagy-related cysteine peptidase family genes may play crucial roles in human spermatogenesis and identified ATG4D as a novel candidate gene for male infertility due to NOA.

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

4.5
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