4.6 Article

Polymorphisms in inhibin α gene promoter associated with male infertility

期刊

GENE
卷 559, 期 2, 页码 172-176

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2015.01.041

关键词

Infertility; Sperm; Inhibin alpha; Polymorphism

资金

  1. State Key Development Program of Basic Research (973 Program) of China [2011CB944203]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT) [IRT1248]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [3A413X686604, 3A413X666604]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhibins play important roles in normal gonadal function, including regulation of proliferation, differentiation, and steroidogenesis of Leydig and Sertoli cells via paracrine and autocrine processes. In adult males, circulating inhibin levels are correlated with fertility by regulating the number of Sertoli cells, total sperm count, and testicular volume. Given this important role, inhibin-alpha subunit (INHA) is a strong candidate gene in male fertility. However, limited data regarding the association of polymorphisms of INHA with male fertility are available. This study was based on the hypothesis that polymorphisms in the promoter of INHA are associated with male fertility. Han Chinese patients with non-normozoospermia (n = 153) and normozoospermia (n = 72) from Northern China were screened, and genotypes were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism after INHA promoter was amplified. Statistical analysis results revealed a significant difference in the allele frequency of INHA promoter between males with non-normozoospermia and normozoospermia. For c.-124G>A, males carrying c.-124GG genotype and c.-124GA genotype showed an increased risk of non-normozoospermic syndrome. For c.-16C>T polymorphism, no significant difference in allele frequency was observed between the two groups. Therefore, the haplotype AC possibly displayed a considerable reduced risk of non-normozoospermic syndrome. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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