4.4 Article

Effect of GnRHR polymorphisms on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 62, 期 12, 页码 1065-1071

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2017.85

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the relationship between gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor (GnRHR) gene polymorphisms and outcome of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). PCOS patients undergoing IVF-ET were selected, and infertile patients due to dysfunctional oviducts served as controls. GnRHR gene polymorphisms were detected using the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay. Gene-gene interaction and linkage disequilibrium tests were performed using the SHEsis software. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors affecting outcome of patients undergoing IVF-ET. The PCOS group showed more patients with CC+ CT genotypes rs12644822, rs3756159 and rs13138607 than the control group, and CC+ CT genotypes and C alleles from three positions enhanced risk of PCOS. Patients with CC+ CT genotypes from three positions exhibited increased serum luteinizing hormone (LH), LH/follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone (T) and follicles than those with TT genotypes. The haplotype analysis indicated that CCC, CCT and TCC haplotypes increased the risk of PCOS, while TCT, TTC and TTT haplotypes lowered the risk. After IVF-ET treatment, patients with CC+ CT genotypes of three positions in the GnRHR gene had a lower pregnancy rate than patients with TT genotypes. Logistic regression analysis indicated that CC+ CT genotypes rs12644822, rs3756159 and rs13138607 were risk factor for patients undergoing IVF-ET. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that CC+ CT genotypes rs12644822C4T, rs3756159C4T and rs13138607C4T in the GnRHR gene may contribute to a decreased pregnancy rate for PCOS patients after IVF-ET.

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

4.4
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