4.5 Article

Folic acid supplementation and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene variations in relation to in vitro fertilization pregnancy outcome

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12522

关键词

Folate; folic acid; homocysteine; infertility; methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase; pregnancy outcome

资金

  1. Family Planning Foundation and Fodelsefonden, Uppsala, Sweden
  2. Regional Research Foundation, Orebro, Sweden
  3. Pampers Scholarship, Sweden
  4. R&D grants from Praktikertjanst AB, Stockholm, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo study folic acid intake, folate status and pregnancy outcome after infertility treatment in women with different infertility diagnoses in relation to methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) 677C>T, 1298A>C and 1793G>A polymorphisms. Also the use of folic acid supplements, folate status and the frequency of different gene variations were studied in women undergoing infertility treatment and fertile women. DesignObservational study. SettingUniversity hospital. PopulationWomen undergoing infertility treatment and healthy, fertile, non-pregnant women. MethodsA questionnaire was used to assess general background data and use of dietary supplements. Blood samples were taken to determine plasma folate and homocysteine levels, and for genomic DNA extraction. A comparison of four studies was performed to assess pregnancy outcome in relation to MTHFR 677 TT vs. CC, and 1298 CC vs. AA polymorphisms. Main outcome measuresFolic acid supplement intake, and plasma folate, homocysteine and genomic assays. ResultsWomen in the infertility group used significantly more folic acid supplements and had better folate status than fertile women, but pregnancy outcome after fertility treatment was not dependent on folic acid intake, folate status or MTHFR gene variations. ConclusionHigh folic acid intakes and MTHFR gene variations seem not to be associated with helping women to achieve pregnancy during or after fertility treatment.

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

4.5
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