| Literature DB >> 35909514 |
Jian Zhang1, Nan Ding1, Wenhu Xin1, Xin Yang1, Fang Wang1.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to study the relationship between ferroptosis proteins and reproductive outcomes of infertile patients with PCOS and construct the related prognostic model.Entities:
Keywords: PCOS; endometrial proteins; ferroptosis; prognostic model; quantitative proteomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35909514 PMCID: PMC9330063 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.871945
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Figure 1Protein identification analysis and clinical data evaluation.
Clinical and prognosis data of patients with PCOS and controls.
| Variable | PCOS (n = 33) | Control (n = 7) | U/χ2 value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Age (years) | 25.82±3.15 | 27.00±2.94 | 94.50 | 0.452 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.17±3.79 | 21.39±2.81 | 55.00 | 0.031* |
|
| ||||
| AMH (ng/mL) | 8.96±4.08 | 1.81±1.07 | 8.00 | <0.001** |
| Basal FSH (IU/L) | 6.82±1.65 | 5.67±0.83 | 52.00 | 0.024* |
| Basal LH (IU/L) | 11.85±4.27 | 5.34±0.62 | 23.00 | 0.001* |
| LH/FSH Ratio | 1.77±0.66 | 0.95±0.12 | 22.00 | 0.001* |
| Basal T (ng/dL) | 42.12±17.56 | 24.69±11.36 | 45.00 | 0.012* |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 5.22±0.54 | 4.51±0.41 | 33.00 | 0.003* |
| Insulin (mIU/L) | 19.51±12.72 | 8.97±3.90 | 47.50 | 0.015* |
| HOMA-IR | 4.60±3.16 | 1.79±0.79 | 33.00 | 0.003* |
| ET (mm) | 4.70±2.11 | 9.91±1.24 | 8.00 | <0.001** |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Gestational time of live birth | 38.10±2.00 | 37.86±1.07 | 53.50 | 0.351 |
| Adverse gestational time | 5.77±5.07 | – | – | – |
|
| ||||
| Live birth n(%) | 20(60.6) | 7(100) | 4.085 | 0.043* |
| Adverse gestation n(%) | 13(39.4) | 0(0) | ||
All data are mean±SD values. BMI Body mass index; AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; FSH, follicle stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; T, testosterone; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance; ET, endometrial thickness; U value of Mann-whitney U test, χ2 value of chi-square test, *, ** statistically significant.
Figure 2Identification and functional enrichment of DEPs.
Figure 3Ferroptosis relative proteins differential analysis.
Figure 4Establishment and evaluation of the FerSig risk prognostic model.
Figure 5Immune microenvironment analysis.