Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 2;22(1):805.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05113-z.

Investigation of the role of X chromosome inactivation and androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphisms in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a prospective case-control study

Affiliations

Investigation of the role of X chromosome inactivation and androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphisms in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a prospective case-control study

Yilun Sui et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: Previous research has revealed that skewed X chromosome inactivation (SXCI) and androgen receptor (AR) CAG polymorphisms are associated with increased risk of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL); however, the results are conflicting, and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. This study investigated the role of SXCI and AR CAG polymorphisms in patients with RPL and explored whether the underlying mechanisms were related to the ovarian reserve and preimplantation embryo aneuploidy.

Methods: This was a prospective case-control study carried out in a tertiary hospital-based reproductive medicine center. An external validation RPL cohort was recruited during the study period. Data on baseline and cycle characteristics were collected. X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) was measured using a human AR assay. AR polymorphisms were assessed using quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reactions and direct sequencing. Blastocysts of the patients with RPL were tested by single nucleotide polymorphism microarray based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

Results: In total, 131 patients with idiopathic RPL and 126 controls were included for the case-control study. Patients with RPL exhibited a significantly more skewed XCI distribution pattern (67.71 ± 10.50 vs. 64.22 ± 10.62, p = 0.011), as well as significantly shorter bi-allelic mean (18.56 ± 1.97 vs. 19.34 ± 2.38, p = 0.005) and X-weighted bi-allelic mean (18.46 ± 2.02 vs. 19.38 ± 2.53, p = 0.001) of AR CAG repeats. Multivariate logistic regression models indicated that CAG repeat < 20, SXCI, and duration of stimulation were independently associated with the risk of RPL. However, SXCI and AR CAG polymorphisms were not associated with ovarian reserve or preimplantation embryo aneuploidy in the RPL group, and the same results were attained in a separate validation cohort of 363 patients with RPL.

Conclusion: SXCI and AR CAG polymorphisms are related to RPL; however, these two factors do not lead to RPL by affecting the ovarian reserve or increasing embryo aneuploidy. The roles of SXCI and AR CAG in RPL may involve other mechanisms that require further investigation.

Trial registration: NCT02504281, https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov (Date of registration, 21/07/2015; date of enrolment of the first subject, 30/07/2015).

Keywords: Androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphisms; Ovarian reserve; Preimplantation embryo aneuploidy; Recurrent pregnancy loss; X-chromosome inactivation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study. PL = pregnancy loss; PGT-A = preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection; AR = androgen receptor; DOR = diminished ovarian reserve
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
 A) Comparison of the XCI skew between the RPL and control groups. The XCI skew is significantly higher in patients with RPL than in the controls (mean ± standard deviation, 67.71 ± 10.50 vs. 64.22 ± 10.62, p = 0.011). XCI = X-chromosome inactivation; RPL = recurrent pregnancy loss B) Comparison of the AR CAG repeat polymorphism between the RPL and control groups. The short allele (16.87 ± 2.39, vs. 17.77 ± 2.37, p = 0.003) and BAM (18.56 ± 1.97 vs. 19.34 ± 2.38, p = 0.005) were significantly shorter in patients with RPL than in controls. The difference in bioactive CAG repeats (XWBM) was more pronounced (18.46 ± 2.02 vs. 19.38 ± 2.53, p = 0.001). AR CAG = androgen receptor CAG; RPL = recurrent pregnancy loss; XWBM = X-weighted-biallelic-mean. C) Percentage of women with XCI skew > 90, 85–90, and < 85 in the RPL and control groups. The prevalence of highly skewed XCI (≥ 85%) and extremely skewed XCI (≥ 90%) were not significantly different between the two groups. XCI = X-chromosome inactivation; RPL = recurrent pregnancy loss D) Comparison of patients with RPL and controls according to CAG repeats. The median CAG repeat length of the control group was 19.50 or 19.72 calculated as BAM or XWBM, such that 20 was used as the cut-off value. The distribution was significantly different between the two groups (chi-square test, p-value = 0.000 for BAM, p-value = 0.000 for XWBM). RPL = recurrent pregnancy loss; XWBM = X-weighted biallelic mean; BAM = biallelic mean.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kolte AM, Bernardi LA, Christiansen OB, Quenby S, Farquharson RG, Goddijn M, et al. ESHRE Special Interest Group, Early Pregnancy. Terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability: a consensus statement from the ESHRE early pregnancy special interest group. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:495–8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu299. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Green Top RCOG. 2011 Guideline. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent miscarriage (Green-Top Guideline No. 17). https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/3cbgonl0/gtg_17.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2022.
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:533–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. The international committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology, 2009. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2683–7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep343. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Early E. Pregnancy Guideline Development Group. Guideline on the management of recurrent pregnancy loss, 2017. https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Recurrent-pregnancy.... Accessed 4 April 2022.

Substances

Associated data