Y chromosome azoospermia factor region microdeletions are not associated with idiopathic recurrent spontaneous abortion in a Slovenian population: association study and literature review

The Progress of Research on Genetic Factors of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is both mental and physical health problem affecting about 1-5% of women of childbearing age. The etiology of RPL is complex, involving chromosomal abnormalities, autoimmune diseases, metabolic disorders, and endometrial dysfunction. The causes of abortion are still unknown in more than 50% of these cases. With the development of science and technology, an increasing number of scholars focus on this field and find that genetic factors may play an essential role in unexplained RPL, such as embolism-related genes, immune factor-related genes, and chromosomal numeric, and structural variation. This review summarizes the genetic factors associated with RPL, including genetic mutations and genetic polymorphisms, chromosomal variants, and chromosomal polymorphisms. Many related genetic factors have been found to be demographically and geographically relevant, some of which can be used for risk prediction or screening for the etiology of RPL. However, it is difficult to predict and prevent RPL due to uncertain pathogenesis and highly variable clinical presentation. Therefore, the genetic factors of RPL still need plentiful research to obtain a more accurate understanding of its pathogenesis and to provide more detection means for the screening and prevention of RPL.

Association of male factors with recurrent pregnancy loss

The role of male factors in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is receiving increased attention since sperm quantity and quality, male genetic mutations, as well as epigenetic modifications, have all been associated with RPL. A growing number of studies have been published on the relationship between male factors and RPL; however, these reports are limited due to small sample sizes, inconsistent inclusion criteria, and detection methods. Herein, we investigate the effects of several male factors on RPL from a genetic and non-genetic perspective to aid clinicians in determining the etiology and optimal treatment strategy for patients with RPL.

Cytogenetic Screening in Couples with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Single-Center Study and Review of Literature

Context:

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a devastating reproductive problem that affects more than 2% of couples who are trying to conceive. Chromosomal rearrangements in either carrier are a major cause of clinically recognized abortion.

Aims:

The purpose of this study is to report the prevalence of chromosome abnormalities in RPL and provide clinical characteristics of couples with two and more miscarriages.

Settings and Design:

Genetic counseling in laboratory of histology housed in a Faculty of Medicine of Sfax.

Materials and Methods:

Karyotype was generated from the peripheral blood lymphocyte cultures and the cytogenetic analysis was performed using R-bands after heat denaturation and Giemsa (RHG) banding. A multiplex polymerase chain reaction wherever necessary was done.

Statistical Analysis Used:

SPSS version 17.

Results:

A total of 104 couples with RPL were carried out in this study. The frequency of chromosomal rearrangements was 11.5%, three times more prevalent in men than women (P = 0.08). In addition, the prevalence of chromosomal anomalies increases according to the number of miscarriages (from 4.8% to 7.6%, with 2 or ≥3 miscarriages, respectively; P = 0.9). Finally, a particular familial adverse reproductive background was found in these carriers (P = 0.03).

Conclusions:

These data highlight that an RPL evaluation is appropriate after the second miscarriage and that cytogenetic evaluation is necessary for an accurate approach to elucidate the causes of RPL. Moreover, familial adverse reproductive backgrounds have an impact of being carrier of chromosome abnormalities and a larger study is mandatory to define reproductive characteristics of carriers.

The effects of Y chromosome microdeletions on in vitro fertilization outcomes, health abnormalities in offspring and recurrent pregnancy loss

Male factor infertility accounts for approximately 50% of all infertility evaluations. A common cause of severe oligozoospermia and azoospermia is Y chromosome microdeletions (YCMs). Men with these genetic microdeletions must typically undergo assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures to obtain paternity. In this review, we performed a thorough and extensive search of the literature to summarize the effects of YCMs on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes, health abnormalities in offspring and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The PubMed database was searched using specific search terms and papers were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sperm retrieval amongst men with complete AZFa and/or AZFb deletions is extremely rare and thus data on ARTs is largely unavailable. In AZFc-deleted men undergoing assisted reproduction, the collective fertilization rate (FR) is 59.8%, the clinical pregnancy rate is 28.6% and the live birth rate is 23.4%. When successful, the YCM is always transmitted to the male offspring and the deletion size either remains unchanged or widens. YCMs generally result in decreased fertilization, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates compared to men with intact Y chromosomes during ART interventions. There is a minimal or absent association of YCMs with abnormalities in the offspring or RPL.

Male chromosomal polymorphisms reduce cumulative live birth rate for IVF couples

PURPOSE

Chromosomal polymorphisms are associated with infertility, but their effects on assisted reproductive outcomes are still quite conflicting, especially after IVF treatment. This study evaluated the role of chromosomal polymorphisms of different genders in IVF pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

Four hundred and twenty-five infertile couples undergoing IVF treatment were divided into three groups: 214 couples with normal chromosomes (group A, control group), 86 couples with female polymorphisms (group B), and 125 couples with male polymorphisms (group C). The pregnancy outcomes after the first and cumulative transfer cycles were analyzed, and the main outcome measures were live birth rate (LBR) after the first transfer cycle and cumulative LBR after a complete IVF cycle.

RESULTS

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after the first transfer cycle within group A, group B, and group C demonstrated a similar LBR as well as other rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy, early miscarriage, and ongoing pregnancy (P > 0.05). However, the analysis of cumulative pregnancy outcomes indicated that compared with group A, group C had a significantly lower LBR per cycle (80.4 vs 68.00%), for a rate ratio of 1.182 (95% CI 1.030 to 1.356, P = 0.01) and a significantly higher cumulative early miscarriage rate (EMR) among clinical pregnancies (7.2 vs 14.7%), for a rate ratio of 0.489 (95% CI 0.248 to 0.963, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Couples with chromosomal polymorphisms in only male partners have poor pregnancy outcomes after IVF treatment manifesting as high cumulative EMR and low LBR after a complete cycle.