ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
The potential impact of tumor suppressor genes on human gametogenesis: a case-control study.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo study the incidence of tumor suppressor gene (TSG) mutations in men and women with impaired gametogenesis.
methodsGene association analyses were performed on blood samples in two distinct patient populations: males with idiopathic male infertility and females with unexplained diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). The male study group consisted of men with idiopathic azoospermia, oligozoospermia, asthenozoospermia, or teratozoospermia. Age-matched controls were men with normal semen analyses. The female study group consisted of women with unexplained DOR with anti-Müllerian hormone levels ≤ 1.1 ng/mL. Controls were age-matched women with normal ovarian reserve (> 1.1 ng/mL).
resultsFifty-seven male cases (mean age = 38.4; mean sperm count = 15.7 ± 12.1; mean motility = 38.2 ± 24.7) and 37 age-matched controls (mean age = 38.0; mean sperm count = 89.6 ± 37.5; mean motility = 56.2 ± 14.3) were compared. Variants observed in CHD5 were found to be enriched in the study group (p = 0.000107). The incidence of CHD5 mutation c.*3198_*3199insT in the 3'UTR (rs538186680) was significantly higher in cases compared to controls (p = 0.0255). 72 DOR cases (mean age = 38.7; mean AMH = 0.5 ± 0.3; mean FSH = 11.7 ± 12.5) and 48 age-matched controls (mean age = 37.6; mean AMH = 4.1 ± 3.0; mean FSH = 7.1 ± 2.2) were compared. Mutations in CHD5 (c.-140A>C), RB1 (c.1422-18delT, rs70651121), and TP53 (c.376-161A>G, rs75821853) were found at significantly higher frequencies in DOR cases compared to controls (p ≤ 0.05). In addition, 363 variants detected in the DOR patients were not present in the control group.
conclusionUnexplained impaired gametogenesis in both males and females may be associated with genetic variation in TSGs. TSGs, which play cardinal roles in cell-cycle control, might also be critical for normal spermatogenesis and oogenesis. If validated in larger prospective studies, it is possible that TSGs provide an etiological basis for some patients with impaired gametogenesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.