Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34498060›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2021

A systematic review of the validated monogenic causes of human male infertility: 2020 update and a discussion of emerging gene-disease relationships.

Brendan J Houston, Antoni Riera-Escamilla, Margot J Wyrwoll, Albert Salas-Huetos, Miguel J Xavier, Liina Nagirnaja, Corinna Friedrich, Don F Conrad, Kenneth I Aston, Csilla Krausz and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

146 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 248 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.

Brendan J HoustonSchool of BioSciences and Bio21 Institute, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1078-756X
Antoni Riera-EscamillaAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas Sant Pau (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Margot J WyrwollInstitute of Reproductive Genetics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Albert Salas-HuetosAndrology and IVF Laboratory, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Miguel J XavierFaculty of Medical Sciences, Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Liina NagirnajaDivision of Genetics, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR, USA.
Corinna FriedrichInstitute of Reproductive Genetics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Don F ConradDivision of Genetics, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR, USA.
Kenneth I AstonAndrology and IVF Laboratory, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Csilla KrauszGenetics of Male Infertility Initiative (GEMINI).
Frank TüttelmannInstitute of Reproductive Genetics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2745-9965
Moira K O'BryanSchool of BioSciences and Bio21 Institute, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Joris A VeltmanFaculty of Medical Sciences, Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Manon S OudDepartment of Human Genetics, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9513-3030
University of Münster · DENewcastle University · GBOregon National Primate Research Center · USThe University of Melbourne · AUHarvard University · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

GENOMICS OF SPERMATOGENIC IMPAIRMENTR01HD078641 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Kenneth Ivan Aston, DONALD F. CONRAD · 2014 to 2026
$6.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD078641Wellcome Trust 209451Wellcome Trust 209451/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman male infertility has a notable genetic component, including well-established diagnoses such as Klinefelter syndrome, Y-chromosome microdeletions and monogenic causes. Approximately 4% of all infertile men are now diagnosed with a genetic cause, but a majority (60-70%) remain without a clear diagnosis and are classified as unexplained. This is likely in large part due to a delay in the field adopting next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, and the absence of clear statements from field leaders as to what constitutes a validated cause of human male infertility (the current paper aims to address this). Fortunately, there has been a significant increase in the number of male infertility NGS studies. These have revealed a considerable number of novel gene-disease relationships (GDRs), which each require stringent assessment to validate the strength of genotype-phenotype associations. To definitively assess which of these GDRs are clinically relevant, the International Male Infertility Genomics Consortium (IMIGC) has identified the need for a systematic review and a comprehensive overview of known male infertility genes and an assessment of the evidence for reported GDRs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: In 2019, the first standardised clinical validity assessment of monogenic causes of male infertility was published. Here, we provide a comprehensive update of the subsequent 1.5 years, employing the joint expertise of the IMIGC to systematically evaluate all available evidence (as of 1 July 2020) for monogenic causes of isolated or syndromic male infertility, endocrine disorders or reproductive system abnormalities affecting the male sex organs. In addition, we systematically assessed the evidence for all previously reported possible monogenic causes of male infertility, using a framework designed for a more appropriate clinical interpretation of disease genes. SEARCH

methodsWe performed a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines up until 1 July 2020 for publications in English, using search terms related to 'male infertility' in combination with the word 'genetics' in PubMed. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes were assessed using an established and standardised scoring method. We assessed the experimental quality, patient phenotype assessment and functional evidence based on gene expression, mutant in-vitro cell and in-vivo animal model phenotypes. A final score was used to determine the clinical validity of each GDR, across the following five categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong or definitive. Variants were also reclassified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines and were recorded in spreadsheets for each GDR, which are available at imigc.org. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of this review was an overview of all known GDRs for monogenic causes of human male infertility and their clinical validity. We identified a total of 120 genes that were moderately, strongly or definitively linked to 104 infertility phenotypes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Our systematic review curates all currently available evidence to reveal the strength of GDRs in male infertility. The existing guidelines for genetic testing in male infertility cases are based on studies published 25 years ago, and an update is far overdue. The identification of 104 high-probability 'human male infertility genes' is a 33% increase from the number identified in 2019. The insights generated in the current review will provide the impetus for an update of existing guidelines, will inform novel evidence-based genetic testing strategies used in clinics, and will identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility genetics. We discuss the relevant international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations to the field of male infertility. Based on our findings, the IMIGC consortium recommend several updates to the genetic testing standards currently employed in the field of human male infertility, most important being the adoption of exome sequencing, or at least sequencing of the genes validated in this study, and expanding the patient groups for which genetic testing is recommended.

Indexed as

Infertility, MaleAnimalsChromosome DeletionGenetic TestingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleclinical validitygene–disease relationshipgene panelgeneticsmale infertilitymultiple morphological abnormalities of the sperm flagellanext-generation sequencingspermatogenic failuresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34498060
PMCPMC8730311
OpenAlexW3200516517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.