4.6 Article

Leukocyte Telomere Length Correlates with Extended Female Fertility

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11030513

关键词

telomeres; longevity; female fertility; reproductive aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current trend of delayed reproduction in society calls for a better understanding of reproductive aging. This study found that longer leukocyte telomere length may be associated with higher oocyte quality and can serve as a potential biomarker for assessing reproductive potential.
Current social trends of delayed reproduction to the fourth and fifth decade of life call for a better understanding of reproductive aging. Demographic studies correlated late reproduction with general health and longevity. Telomeres, the protective ends of eukaryotic chromosomes, were implicated in various aging-associated pathologies and longevity. To examine whether telomeres are also associated with reproductive aging, we measured by Southern analysis the terminal restriction fragments (TRF) in leukocytes of women delivering a healthy infant following a spontaneous pregnancy at 43-48 years of age. We compared them to age-matched previously fertile women who failed to conceive above age 41. The average TRF length in the extended fertility group (9350 bp) was significantly longer than in the normal fertility group (8850 bp; p-value = 0.03). Strikingly, excluding women with nine or more children increased the difference between the groups to over 1000 bp (9920 and 8880 bp; p-value = 0.0009). Nevertheless, we observed no apparent effects of pregnancy, delivery, or parity on telomere length. We propose that longer leukocyte telomere length reflects higher oocyte quality, which can compensate for other limiting physiological and behavioral factors and enable successful reproduction. Leukocyte telomere length should be further explored as a novel biomarker of oocyte quality for assessing reproductive potential and integrating family planning with demanding women's careers.

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