Sayyed Mohammad Hossein Ghaderian1, Reza Akbarzadeh2,3, Saghar Salehpour4. 1. Urogenital Stem Cell Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Institute of Anatomy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. 3. Skin Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Preventative Gynecology Research Center (PGRC), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. saghar.salehpour2014@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unpredictability in acquiring an adequate number of high-quality oocytes following ovarian stimulation is one of the major complications in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Genetic predispositions of variations could alter the immunological profiles and consequently be implicated in the variability of ovarian response to the stimulation. DESIGN: Uncovering the influence of variations in AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, PGR, and SERPINE1 genes with ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation in COH of infertile women. METHODS: Blood samples of the women with a good ovarian response (GOR) or with a poor ovarian response (POR) were collected. Genomic DNA was extracted, and gene variations were genotyped by TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assays using primer-probe sets or real-time PCR Kit. RESULTS: Except for PGR (rs10895068), allele distributions demonstrate that the majority of POR patients carried minor alleles of AMHR2 (rs2002555, G-allele), LHCGR (rs2293275, G-allele), MTHFR (rs1801131, C-allele, and rs1801133, T-allele), and SERPINE1 (rs1799889, 4G allele) genes compared to the GOR. Similarly, genotypes with a minor allele in AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, and SERPINE1 genes had a higher prevalence among POR patients with the polymorphic genotypes. However, further genotype stratification indicated that the minor alleles of these genes are not associated with poor response. Multivariate logistic analysis of clinical-demographic factors and polymorphic genotypes demonstrated a correlation between FSH levels and polymorphic genotypes of SERPINE1 in poor response status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, and SERPINE1 variations in the patients with poor ovarian response, it seems that these variations are not associated with the ovarian response.
PURPOSE: Unpredictability in acquiring an adequate number of high-quality oocytes following ovarian stimulation is one of the major complications in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Genetic predispositions of variations could alter the immunological profiles and consequently be implicated in the variability of ovarian response to the stimulation. DESIGN: Uncovering the influence of variations in AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, PGR, and SERPINE1 genes with ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation in COH of infertile women. METHODS: Blood samples of the women with a good ovarian response (GOR) or with a poor ovarian response (POR) were collected. Genomic DNA was extracted, and gene variations were genotyped by TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assays using primer-probe sets or real-time PCR Kit. RESULTS: Except for PGR (rs10895068), allele distributions demonstrate that the majority of POR patients carried minor alleles of AMHR2 (rs2002555, G-allele), LHCGR (rs2293275, G-allele), MTHFR (rs1801131, C-allele, and rs1801133, T-allele), and SERPINE1 (rs1799889, 4G allele) genes compared to the GOR. Similarly, genotypes with a minor allele in AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, and SERPINE1 genes had a higher prevalence among POR patients with the polymorphic genotypes. However, further genotype stratification indicated that the minor alleles of these genes are not associated with poor response. Multivariate logistic analysis of clinical-demographic factors and polymorphic genotypes demonstrated a correlation between FSH levels and polymorphic genotypes of SERPINE1 in poor response status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of AMHR2, LHCGR, MTHFR, and SERPINE1 variations in the patients with poor ovarian response, it seems that these variations are not associated with the ovarian response.
Authors: L L van Loendersloot; M van Wely; J Limpens; P M M Bossuyt; S Repping; F van der Veen Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Carla Peluso; Fernando L A Fonseca; Guilherme G Gastaldo; Denise M Christofolini; Emerson Barchi Cordts; Caio P Barbosa; Bianca Bianco Journal: Cell Physiol Biochem Date: 2015-03-12
Authors: Maria D Salazar Garcia; Nayoung Sung; Thomas M Mullenix; Svetlana Dambaeva; Kenneth Beaman; Alice Gilman-Sachs; Joanne Kwak-Kim Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: Immaculata De Vivo; Gordon S Huggins; Susan E Hankinson; Pamela J Lescault; Marike Boezen; Graham A Colditz; David J Hunter Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-09-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christian Cerra; William G Newman; Dalia Tohlob; Helen Byers; Gregory Horne; Stephen A Roberts; Lamiya Mohiyiddeen Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.412