ArticleMolecular biology reports2019
Evaluation of clinical utility of P53 gene variations in repeated implantation failure.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine modification profiling of long non-coding RNAs in patients with recurrent implantation failure.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Epigenetic role of LINE-1 methylation and key genes in pregnancy maintenance.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Genetic variants in the p53 pathway influence implantation and pregnancy maintenance in IVF treatments using donor oocytes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Biomolecular Markers of Recurrent Implantation Failure-A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated implantation failure (RIF) is one the most common causes which showed during IVF (In vitro fertilization) procedure. We aim to evaluate the possibility role of nucleotide changes in rs1042522 (R72P; G/C) and rs17878362 (Ins16bp; N/D) of P53 gene in patients with RIF. In a case-control survey, we have considered 200 women, consisting of 100 cases with RIF and 100 women with the normal pregnancy. In order to determine the genotype frequencies, we used polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method. The NN + ND/DD (dominant) genotype frequencies of rs17878362 variant revealed a significant difference between two groups (P = 0.001; OR 2.652; 95% CI 1.480-4.754). In addition, the CC + GC/GG (recessive) genotype frequencies of rs1042522 (R72P) variant indicated a significant difference between two groups (P = 0.018; OR 3.353; 95% CI 1.169-9.616). Our findings suggested that rs1042522 (R72P; G/C) and rs17878362 (Ins16bp; N/D) of P53 gene polymorphisms could be a genetic predisposing factor for RIF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30859450What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.