4.3 Article

Digit ratio (2D:4D) does not correlate with daily 17β-estradiol and progesterone concentrations in healthy women of reproductive age

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 667-673

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22717

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Centre [N N404 273440]
  2. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [IdP2011 000161]
  3. Salus Publica Foundation
  4. Yale University Program in Reproductive Ecology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesSecond-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) is proposed as a proxy for the prenatal balance of sex hormones, is related to hormone-dependent characteristics in adult life, and is a possible predictor of disease later in life. Here, we studied the relationship between 2D:4D and ovarian steroid hormones (17-estradiol and progesterone) among women of reproductive age. MethodsFrom 186 healthy premenopausal women, aged 24-37 years, we collected saliva samples daily during the entire menstrual cycle. Data on reproductive and lifestyle characteristics were collected via questionnaires, and anthropometric measurements were performed. ResultsNo statistically significant relationships were detected between adult women's sex hormone concentrations (17-estradiol and progesterone) during the menstrual cycle and 2D:4D, in either left or right hand, when controlling for size at birth, body mass index, and physical activity. ConclusionsThis study shows, for the first time in a large sample of women of reproductive age, that 2D:4D is not a predictor of adult women's sex hormone concentration. The lack of relationship may be because 2D:4D might be genetically determined and is not related to maternal nutritional environment during fetal development. These results support the hypothesis that, in contrast to the nutritional quality of the fetal environment, the fetal hormonal environment (reflected by 2D:4D) does not determine reproductive physiology in later life. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 27:666-673, 2015. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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