| Literature DB >> 34867826 |
Ya-Jing Liu1,2,3,4,5, Fen Xing1,2,3,4,5, Kai Zong6, Meng-Yao Wang1,2,3,4,5, Dong-Mei Ji1,2,3,4,5, Yu-Hang Zhao7, Yun-He Xia7, An Wang7, Ling-Ge Shi1,2,3,4,5, Si-Min Ding1,2,3,4,5, Zhao-Lian Wei1,2,3,4,5, Jin-Ping Qiao8, Xin Du9, Yun-Xia Cao1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
More than 10% of women suffer from endometriosis (EMT) during their reproductive years. EMT can cause pain and infertility and requires further study from multiple perspectives. Previous reports have indicated that an increase inapolipoprotein E (ApoE) may be associated with a lower number of retrieved mature oocytes in older women, and an association between ApoE and spontaneous pregnancy loss may exist in patients with EMT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the existence of an increase in ApoE in follicular fluid (FF) and the possible relationship between ApoE and EMT in Chinese women. In the current study, 217 Chinese women (111 control subjects and 106 EMT patients) were included. The ApoE genotypes were identified by Sanger sequencing. We found that ApoE expression in FF was higher in patients with EMT than in the control group. In addition, a significant difference in ApoE4 carriers (ϵ3/ϵ4, ϵ4/ϵ4) was found between the control subjects and the patients with EMT. Furthermore, a nonparametric test revealed significant differences in the numbers of blastocysts and high-quality blastocysts, but not the hormone levels of FSH, LH, and E2, between the two groups. We also established a multifactor (BMI, high-quality blastocysts, and ϵ4) prediction model with good sensitivity for identifying patients who may suffer from EMT. Our results demonstrate that ApoE expression in FF is increased in EMT, the ApoE-ϵ4 allele is significantly linked to EMT, and a combined analysis of three factors (BMI, high-quality blastocysts, and ϵ4) could be used as a predictor of EMT.Entities:
Keywords: apolipoprotein E; endometriosis; follicular fluid; genotype; multifactor prediction model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34867826 PMCID: PMC8638081 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.779183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1ApoE levels in the follicular fluid (FF) of the control group and patients with EMT. (A, B) Representative Western blotting results showing ApoE expression in the FF of the control subjects and the patients with EMT. Tubulin was used as an internal control. The data are expressed as the means ± SEMs; *p < 0.05. (C–G) Representative Sanger sequencing for E2/E3,E2/E4,E3/E3, E3/E4,E4/E4 genotype; The arrows indicate the positionof the single nucleotide polymorphism.
General characteristics of control subjects and patients with EMT.
| Parameters | Control ( | EMT ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 28.369 ± 2.347 | 29.094 ± 3.109 | −1.932 | 0.055 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.661 ± 3.968 | 21.626 ± 2.636 | 2.275 | 0.024* |
| Infertility time | 3 (2, 4) | 2 (1, 4) | −1.846 | 0.065 |
| Numbers of eggs | 12 (9, 20) | 11 (7, 17) | −1.688 | 0.091 |
| Numbers of blastocysts | 5 (3, 8) | 3.5 (2, 6) | −2.369 | 0.018* |
| High-quality blastocysts | 5 (2, 7) | 3 (1, 5) | −2.888 | 0.004** |
The values show the means ± SD or medians. Student’s t-test and χ2 were performed. BMI, body mass index. Six individuals were included in the statistical analysis. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Frequencies of the ApoE genotype and frequencies in the control group and patients with EMT.
| Control (%) | EMT (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype | |||
| ϵ2/ϵ2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| ϵ2/ϵ3 | 2 (1.8) | 14 (13.2) | |
| ϵ2/ϵ4 | 0 (0) | 2 (1.9) | |
| ϵ3/ϵ3 | 103 (92.8) | 72 (68.0) | |
| ϵ3/ϵ4 | 5 (4.5) | 14 (13.2) | |
| ϵ4/ϵ4 | 1 (0.9) | 4 (3.7) | |
| Allele frequency | |||
| ϵ2 | 2 (0.9) | 16 (7.5) | |
| ϵ3 | 213 (95.9) | 172 (81.1) | |
| ϵ4 | 7 (3) | 24 (11.3) | |
| H-W-E | 0.104 | 0.114 | |
| ApoE-ϵ4 | |||
| ϵ3/ϵ4, ϵ4/ϵ4 | 6 (5.4) | 18 (16.9) | 0.006** |
χ2 test was performed. **p < 0.01.
FSH/LH/E2 levels in the control group and patients with EMT.
| Parameters | Control ( | EMT ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSH | 7.30 (6.27,8.55) | 7.30 (5.74,8.88) | −0.256 | 0.798 |
| LH | 4.42 (3.27, 6.07) | 4.75 (3.36, 5.83) | −0.088 | 0.930 |
| E2 | 128 (59.5, 227.75) | 156.5 (72.25, 238.30) | −1.365 | 0.172 |
Nonparametric test analysis was performed.
Figure 2Multivariate analysis and risk assessment of the control subjects and patients with EMT. (A) Forest map from the multivariate analysis of the control subjects and patients with EMT; BMI, p = 0.008; high-quality blastocysts, p = 0.043; ApoE-ϵ4, p = 0.008. (B) Nomograph for predicting patients with EMT.
Figure 3ROC curve of the prediction model and nomogram for patients suffering from EMT. The AUC value should be in the range of 0.5 to 1.0. An AUC of 0.5 corresponds to a random prediction, and the criterion 0.5 < AUC < 1 indicates that the model has predictive significance. (A) Multifactor sensitivity for predictingpatients with EMT; AUC=0.693. (B) Sensitivity to each of the following three factors for predicting patients with EMT: BMI, AUC=0.554; high-quality blastocysts, AUC=0.613; and ApoE-ε4, AUC=0.558. (C) A nomogram was drawn to assess the agreement between the predicted results and the observed actual results. The dashed lines represent the predicted results, and the solid lines represent the actual results. The close fit between the predicted results and the actual results indicates that the prediction effect could be considered good; mean absolute error = 0.026; n = 217.