4.7 Article

Microdeletions and microduplications linked to severe congenital disorders in infertile men

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-27750-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the genome-wide CNV profile in men with SPGF and found that the proportion of CNVs >1 Mb was twice as high in SPGF patients compared to controls. Additionally, seven patients carried microdeletions or microduplications that were linked to severe congenital conditions.
Data on the clinical validity of DNA copy number variants (CNVs) in spermatogenic failure (SPGF) is limited. This study analyzed the genome-wide CNV profile in 215 men with idiopathic SPGF and 62 normozoospermic fertile men, recruited at the Andrology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Estonia. A two-fold higher representation of > 1 Mb CNVs was observed in men with SPGF (13%, n = 28) compared to controls (6.5%, n = 4). Seven patients with SPGF were identified as carriers of microdeletions (1q21.1; 2.4 Mb) or microduplications (3p26.3, 1.1 Mb; 7p22.3-p22.2, 1.56 Mb; 10q11.22, 1.42 Mb, three cases; Xp22.33; 2.3 Mb) linked to severe congenital conditions. Large autosomal CNV carriers had oligozoospermia, reduced or low-normal bitesticular volume (22-28 ml). The 7p22.3-p22.2 microduplication carrier presented mild intellectual disability, neuropsychiatric problems, and short stature. The Xp22.33 duplication at the PAR1/non-PAR boundary, previously linked to uterine agenesis, was detected in a patient with non-obstructive azoospermia. A novel recurrent intragenic deletion in testis-specific LRRC69 was significantly overrepresented in patients with SPGF compared to the general population (3.3% vs. 0.85%; chi(2) test, OR = 3.9 [95% CI 1.8-8.4], P = 0.0001). Assessment of clinically valid CNVs in patients with SPGF will improve their management and counselling for general and reproductive health, including risk of miscarriage and congenital disorders in future 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