4.7 Article

Association between Leukemia Inhibitory Factor Gene Polymorphism and Clinical Outcomes among Young Women with Poor Ovarian Response to Assisted Reproductive Technology

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12030796

关键词

polymorphisms; leukemia inhibitory factor; FSH receptor; poor responders; POSEIDON criteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) gene on ovarian response in infertile young women. The results showed that the LIF genotype was significantly associated with a reduction in ovarian response.
Background: Does the presence of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) gene affect ovarian response in infertile young women? Methods: This was a case-control study recruiting 1744 infertile women between January 2014 to December 2015. The 1084 eligible patients were stratified into four groups using the POSEIDON criteria. The gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor (GnRHR), follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR), anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), and LIF SNP genotypes were compared among the groups. The distributions of LIF and FSHR among younger and older patients were compared. Clinical outcomes were also compared. Results: The four groups of poor responders had different distributions of SNP in LIF. The prevalence of LIF genotypes among young poor ovarian responders differed from those of normal responders. Genetic model analyses in infertile young women revealed that the TG or GG genotype in the LIF resulted in fewer oocytes retrieved and fewer mature oocytes relative to the TT genotypes. In older women, the FSHR SNP genotype contributed to fewer numbers of mature oocytes. Conclusions: LIF and FSHR SNP genotypes were associated with a statistically significant reduction in ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in younger and older women with an adequate ovarian reserve, respectively.

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