INTRODUCTION: Fragile X premutations are associated with primary ovarian insufficiency when the patient presents with amenorrhea, but the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) CGG repeat count among cycling women with low ovarian reserve (diminished ovarian reserve [DOR]) is not yet established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two infertile DOR patients were recruited from 4 US private and academic fertility centers. RESULTS: The prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats was 14.5%. Compared with the general female population estimate from the literature, infertile women with DOR were more likely to have 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats (14.5% and 3.9%, respectively, P = .0003). Similar findings were noted by 5-repeat bandwidth: 35-39 CGG repeats (9.7% DOR vs 3.2% comparison, P = .012) or 40-44 CGG repeats (4.8% DOR vs 0.7% comparison, P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CGG repeats of 35-44 may be markedly overrepresented in women with DOR, whereas the current FMR1 reference range indicates that there is no clinical phenotype with <45 CGG repeats.
INTRODUCTION:Fragile X premutations are associated with primary ovarian insufficiency when the patient presents with amenorrhea, but the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) CGG repeat count among cycling women with low ovarian reserve (diminished ovarian reserve [DOR]) is not yet established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two infertile DOR patients were recruited from 4 US private and academic fertility centers. RESULTS: The prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats was 14.5%. Compared with the general female population estimate from the literature, infertile women with DOR were more likely to have 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats (14.5% and 3.9%, respectively, P = .0003). Similar findings were noted by 5-repeat bandwidth: 35-39 CGG repeats (9.7% DOR vs 3.2% comparison, P = .012) or 40-44 CGG repeats (4.8% DOR vs 0.7% comparison, P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CGG repeats of 35-44 may be markedly overrepresented in women with DOR, whereas the current FMR1 reference range indicates that there is no clinical phenotype with <45 CGG repeats.
Authors: B Bodega; S Bione; L Dalprà; D Toniolo; F Ornaghi; W Vegetti; E Ginelli; Anna Marozzi Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2005-12-16 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Allyn McConkie-Rosell; Liane Abrams; Brenda Finucane; Amy Cronister; Louise W Gane; Sarah M Coffey; Stephanie Sherman; Lawrence M Nelson; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; David Hessl; Sufen Chiu; Natalie Street; Ajay Vatave; Randi J Hagerman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2007-05-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Y H Fu; D P Kuhl; A Pizzuti; M Pieretti; J S Sutcliffe; S Richards; A J Verkerk; J J Holden; R G Fenwick; S T Warren Journal: Cell Date: 1991-12-20 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Amy Cronister; Jennifer Teicher; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Alan Donnenfeld; Stephanie Hallam Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Logan B Karns; Karen Ventura; Myra L Clark; Richard H Steeves; Nancy Callanan Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Mindy S Christianson; Bailey McGuinness; Kamaria Cayton Vaught; Jacqueline Y Maher; William G Kearns Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Timothy L McMurry; Christopher D Williams; Valerie L Baker; Steven L Young Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Bat-Sheva L Maslow; Stephanie Davis; Lawrence Engmann; John C Nulsen; Claudio A Benadiva Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Steven L Young; Ani Manichaikul; Valerie L Baker; Xin Q Wang; Joel S Finkelstein Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Maria Antero; Karen Ventura; J Kim Penberthy; Semara A Thomas; Logan B Karns Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jennie K Kline; Ann M Kinney; Bruce Levin; Stephen A Brown; Andrew G Hadd; Dorothy Warburton Journal: Menopause Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.953