open access

Ahead of Print
Research paper
Published online: 2021-09-23
Get Citation

Can FMR1 CGG repeat lengths predict the outcome in ICSI cycles?

Ebru Cogendez1, Enis Ozkaya1, Aylin Çakıroğlu Eser1, Meryem Eken1, Ali Karaman2
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2021.0180
Affiliations
  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Sciences University, Zeynep Kamil Women’s and Children’s Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  2. Department of Medical Genetics, Health Sciences University Zeynep Kamil Women and Children’s Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İSTANBUL, Turkey

open access

Ahead of Print
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2021-09-23

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COH).

Material and methods: This prospective cohort study was carried out on patients (n = 49) who were admitted to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic of the Zeynep Kamil Women's and Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences. Women under 40 years of age with premature ovarian insufficiency underwent genetic analysis to determine CGG repeat lengths. Ovarian reserve was assessed for each participant and participants underwent ovarian hyperstimulation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. Relationships between ovarian reserve, cycle outcome and CGG repeat lengths were assessed. Variables including fertility assessment including ovarian reserve tests (Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Luteinizing hormone (LH), Estradiol (E2), Prolactin (PRL), Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), Antimullerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC) tests) and some IVF cycle characteristics were assessed in relation to number of CGG repeat numbers.

Results: None of the ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics was found to be correlated with CGG repeat lengths. Comparison of ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics revealed no difference between groups of women with CGG repeat length > 55 and CGG repeat length ≤ 55. Antimullerian hormone (AMH) was a significant predictor for cycle cancellation (AUC = 0.779, P = 0.008). AMH level > 0.035 was found to be the optimal cut off value to predict cycles reaching to embryo transfer with 71% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The rate of cycle cancellation was 71% in cases with AMH ≤ 0.035 whereas it was 20% in cases with AMH > 0.035 (p = 0.001). No difference was determined between groups with and without cycle cancellation in terms of CGG repeat lengths (55.3 vs. 53.9, p = 0.769). Among cycles reaching to embryo transfer stage, 3 (13.6%) pregnancies were achieved.

Conclusions: Our data showed no relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. This data also showed that no clinical difference between FMR gene mutation related POI and other etiologies.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COH).

Material and methods: This prospective cohort study was carried out on patients (n = 49) who were admitted to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic of the Zeynep Kamil Women's and Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences. Women under 40 years of age with premature ovarian insufficiency underwent genetic analysis to determine CGG repeat lengths. Ovarian reserve was assessed for each participant and participants underwent ovarian hyperstimulation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. Relationships between ovarian reserve, cycle outcome and CGG repeat lengths were assessed. Variables including fertility assessment including ovarian reserve tests (Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Luteinizing hormone (LH), Estradiol (E2), Prolactin (PRL), Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), Antimullerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC) tests) and some IVF cycle characteristics were assessed in relation to number of CGG repeat numbers.

Results: None of the ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics was found to be correlated with CGG repeat lengths. Comparison of ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics revealed no difference between groups of women with CGG repeat length > 55 and CGG repeat length ≤ 55. Antimullerian hormone (AMH) was a significant predictor for cycle cancellation (AUC = 0.779, P = 0.008). AMH level > 0.035 was found to be the optimal cut off value to predict cycles reaching to embryo transfer with 71% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The rate of cycle cancellation was 71% in cases with AMH ≤ 0.035 whereas it was 20% in cases with AMH > 0.035 (p = 0.001). No difference was determined between groups with and without cycle cancellation in terms of CGG repeat lengths (55.3 vs. 53.9, p = 0.769). Among cycles reaching to embryo transfer stage, 3 (13.6%) pregnancies were achieved.

Conclusions: Our data showed no relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. This data also showed that no clinical difference between FMR gene mutation related POI and other etiologies.

Get Citation

Keywords

CGG repeat length; pragile X; premature ovarian insufficiency; ICSI

About this article
Title

Can FMR1 CGG repeat lengths predict the outcome in ICSI cycles?

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Ahead of Print

Article type

Research paper

Published online

2021-09-23

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2021.0180

Keywords

CGG repeat length
pragile X
premature ovarian insufficiency
ICSI

Authors

Ebru Cogendez
Enis Ozkaya
Aylin Çakıroğlu Eser
Meryem Eken
Ali Karaman

References (40)
  1. Kunicki M, Rudnicka E, Skórska J, et al. Insulin resistance indexes in women with premature ovarian insufficiency - a pilot study. Ginekol Pol. 2018; 89(7): 364–369.
  2. Falorni A, Minarelli V, Eads CM, et al. A clinical research integration special program (CRISP) for young women with primary ovarian insufficiency. Panminerva Med. 2014; 56(4): 245–261.
  3. Uhlenhaut NH, Treier M. Foxl2 function in ovarian development. Mol Genet Metab. 2006; 88(3): 225–234.
  4. Depmann M, Eijkemans MJC, Broer SL, et al. Does anti-Müllerian hormone predict menopause in the general population? Results of a prospective ongoing cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(7): 1579–1587.
  5. Davies P, Connor E, MacKenzie J, et al. Spontaneous recovery of ovarian function in an adolescent with galactosemia and apparent Premature ovarian insufficiency. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015; 28(4): e101–e103.
  6. Hundscheid RD, Sistermans EA, Thomas CM, et al. Imprinting effect in premature ovarian failure confined to paternally inherited fragile X premutations. Am J Hum Genet. 2000; 66(2): 413–418.
  7. Coulam CB. The prevalence of autoimmune disorders among patients with primary ovarian failure. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1983; 4(2): 63–66.
  8. Silva CA, Yamakami LYS, Aikawa NE, et al. Autoimmune primary ovarian insufficiency. Autoimmun Rev. 2014; 13(4-5): 427–430.
  9. La Marca A, Marzotti S, Brozzetti A, et al. Italian Addison Network. Primary ovarian insufficiency due to steroidogenic cell autoimmunity is associated with a preserved pool of functioning follicles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 94(10): 3816–3823.
  10. Jacquemont S, Hagerman RJ, Leehey MA, et al. Penetrance of the fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome in a premutation carrier population. JAMA. 2004; 291(4): 460–469.
  11. Shamilova NN, Marchenko LA, Dolgushina NV, et al. The role of genetic and autoimmune factors in premature ovarian failure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30(5): 617–622.
  12. Tosh D, Rao KL, Rani HS, et al. Association between fragile X premutation and premature ovarian failure: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 289(6): 1255–1262.
  13. Maddalena A, Richards CS, McGinniss MJ, et al. Technical standards and guidelines for fragile X: the first of a series of disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics. Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the Laboratory Practice Committee. Genet Med. 2001; 3(3): 200–205.
  14. Barros F, Carvalho F, Barros A, et al. Premature ovarian insufficiency: clinical orientations for genetic testing and genetic counseling. Porto Biomed J. 2020; 5(3): e62.
  15. Murray A, Schoemaker MJ, Bennett CE, et al. Population-based estimates of the prevalence of FMR1 expansion mutations in women with early menopause and primary ovarian insufficiency. Genet Med. 2014; 16(1): 19–24.
  16. Bodega B, Bione S, Dalprà L, et al. Influence of intermediate and uninterrupted FMR1 CGG expansions in premature ovarian failure manifestation. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(4): 952–957.
  17. Bretherick KL, Fluker MR, Robinson WP. FMR1 repeat sizes in the gray zone and high end of the normal range are associated with premature ovarian failure. Hum Genet. 2005; 117(4): 376–382.
  18. Bennett CE, Conway GS, Macpherson JN, et al. Intermediate sized CGG repeats are not a common cause of idiopathic premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(5): 1335–1338.
  19. Lledo B, Guerrero J, Ortiz JA, et al. Intermediate and normal sized CGG repeat on the FMR1 gene does not negatively affect donor ovarian response. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(2): 609–614.
  20. Pastore LM, Young SL, Baker VL, et al. Elevated prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 trinucleotide repeats in women with diminished ovarian reserve. Reprod Sci. 2012; 19(11): 1226–1231.
  21. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Oktay K, et al. Correlation of triple repeats on the FMR1 (fragile X) gene to ovarian reserve: a new infertility test? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009; 88(9): 1024–1030.
  22. Schufreider A, McQueen DB, Lee SM, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve is not observed in infertility patients with high normal CGG repeats on the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(11): 2686–2692.
  23. Morin SJ, Tiegs AW, Franasiak JM, et al. FMR1 gene CGG repeat variation within the normal range is not predictive of ovarian response in IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016; 32(5): 496–502.
  24. Webber L, Davies M, Anderson R, et al. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Group on POI. ESHRE Guideline: management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(5): 926–937.
  25. Sherman S, Pletcher BA, Driscoll DA. Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing. Genet Med. 2005; 7(8): 584–587.
  26. Wittenberger MD, Hagerman RJ, Sherman SL, et al. The FMR1 premutation and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87(3): 456–465.
  27. Tassanakijpanich N, Hagerman RJ, Worachotekamjorn J. Fragile X premutation and associated health conditions: A review. Clin Genet. 2021; 99(6): 751–760.
  28. Spath MA, Feuth TB, Allen EG, et al. Intra-individual stability over time of standardized anti-Mullerian hormone in FMR1 premutation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(8): 2185–2191.
  29. Voorhuis M, Onland-Moret NC, Janse F, et al. Dutch Primary Ovarian Insufficiency Consortium. The significance of fragile X mental retardation gene 1 CGG repeat sizes in the normal and intermediate range in women with primary ovarian insufficiency. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(7): 1585–1593.
  30. Gleicher N, Yu Y, Himaya E, et al. Early decline in functional ovarian reserve in young women with low (CGGn < 26) FMR1 gene alleles. Transl Res. 2015; 166(5): 502–507.e1.
  31. Tang R, Yu Qi. The significance of FMR1 CGG repeats in Chinese women with premature ovarian insufficiency and diminished ovarian reserve. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020; 18(1): 82.
  32. Banks N, Patounakis G, Devine K, et al. Is FMR1 CGG repeat length a predictor of in vitro fertilization stimulation response or outcome? Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(6): 1537–1546.e8.
  33. Fiçicioglu C, Yildirim G, Attar R, et al. The significance of the number of CGG repeats and autoantibodies in premature ovarian failure. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 20(6): 776–782.
  34. Batiha O, Shaaban ST, Al-Smadi M, et al. A study on the role of FMR1 CGG trinucleotide repeats in Jordanian poor ovarian responders. Gene. 2021; 767: 145174.
  35. Rehnitz J, Alcoba DD, Brum IS, et al. FMR1 expression in human granulosa cells increases with exon 1 CGG repeat length depending on ovarian reserve. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018; 16(1): 65.
  36. Gustin SLF, Ding VY, Desai M, et al. Evidence of an age-related correlation of ovarian reserve and FMR1 repeat number among women with "normal" CGG repeat status. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32(11): 1669–1676.
  37. Pastore LM, McMurry TL, Williams CD, et al. AMH in women with diminished ovarian reserve: potential differences by FMR1 CGG repeat level. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31(10): 1295–1301.
  38. Eslami A, Farahmand K, Totonchi M, et al. FMR1 premutation: not only important in premature ovarian failure but also in diminished ovarian reserve. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017; 20(2): 120–125.
  39. Ranisavljevic N, Hess M, Castelli C, et al. Are ovarian response and pregnancy rates similar in selected FMR1 premutated and mutated patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020; 37(7): 1675–1683.
  40. Pastore L, Christianson M, McGuinness B, et al. Does theFMR1 gene affect IVF success? Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2019; 38(4): 560–569.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl