4.7 Review

DNA Methylation in Offspring Conceived after Assisted Reproductive Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175056

关键词

DNA methylation; assisted reproductive technique; ART; offspring; epigenetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the methylation levels of H19 CCCTC-binding factor 3 were significantly lower in offspring conceived after ART compared to spontaneously conceived offspring, while other genes showed no significant differences in methylation levels. Further prospective and well-sized population studies are needed to evaluate the impact of ART on the epigenome of offspring due to the lack of studies and data heterogeneity.
Background: In the last 40 years, assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) have emerged as potentially resolving procedures for couple infertility. This study aims to evaluate whether ART is associated with epigenetic dysregulation in the offspring. Methods. To accomplish this, we collected all available data on methylation patterns in offspring conceived after ART and in spontaneously conceived (SC) offspring. Results. We extracted 949 records. Of these, 50 were considered eligible; 12 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Methylation levels of H19 CCCTC-binding factor 3 (CTCF3) were significantly lower in the ART group compared to controls (SMD -0.81 (-1.53; -0.09), I-2 = 89%, p = 0.03). In contrast, H19 CCCTC-binding factor 6 (CTCF6), Potassium Voltage-Gated Channel Subfamily Q Member 1 (KCNQ1OT1), Paternally-expressed gene 3 (PEG3), and Small Nuclear Ribonucleoprotein Polypeptide N (SNRPN) were not differently methylated in ART vs. SC offspring. Conclusion: The methylation pattern of the offspring conceived after ART may be different compared to spontaneous conception. Due to the lack of studies and the heterogeneity of the data, further prospective and well-sized population studies are needed to evaluate the impact of ART on the epigenome of the offspring.

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

4.7
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