Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 1149–1155 | Cite as

Correlation of normal-range FMR1 repeat length or genotypes and reproductive parameters

  • Bat-Sheva L. Maslow
  • Stephanie Davis
  • Lawrence Engmann
  • John C. Nulsen
  • Claudio A. BenadivaEmail author
Genetics

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to ascertain whether the length of normal-ranged CGG repeats on the FMR1 gene correlates with abnormal reproductive parameters.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study of all FMR1 carrier screening performed as part of routine care at a large university-based fertility center from January 2011 to March 2014. Correlations were performed between normal-range FMR1 length and baseline serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), cycle day 3 follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), ovarian volumes (OV), antral follicle counts (AFC), and incidence of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), while controlling for the effect of age.

Results

Six hundred three FMR1 screening results were collected. One subject was found to be a pre-mutation carrier and was excluded from the study. Baseline serum AMH, cycle day 3 FSH, OV, and AFC data were collected for the 602 subjects with normal-ranged CGG repeats. No significant difference in median age was noted amongst any of the FMR1 repeat genotypes. No significant correlation or association was found between any allele length or genotype, with any of the reproductive parameters or with incidence of DOR at any age (p > 0.05). However, subjects who were less than 35 years old with low/low genotype were significantly more likely to have below average AMH levels compared to those with normal/normal genotype (RR 3.82; 95 % CI 1.38–10.56).

Conclusions

This large study did not demonstrate any substantial association between normal-range FMR1 repeat lengths and reproductive parameters.

Keywords

Fragile X FMR1 Diminished ovarian reserve 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Disclosure of funding

None

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Fu Y-H, Kuhl DPA, Pizzuti A, Pieretti M, Sutcliffe JS, Richards S, et al. Variation of the CGG repeat at the fragile X site results in genetic instability: resolution of the Sherman paradox. Cell. 1991;67:1047–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oostra BA, Willemsen R. A fragile balance: FMR1 expression levels. Hum Mol Genet. 2003;12:R249–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garber KB, Visootsak J, Warren ST. Fragile X syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:666–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Streuli I, Fraisse T, Ibecheole V, Moix I, Morris MA, de Ziegler D. Intermediate and premutation FMR1 alleles in women with occult primary ovarian insufficiency. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:464–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peprah E. Understanding decreased fertility in women carriers of the FMR1 premutation: a possible mechanism for Fragile X-Associated Primary Ovarian Insufficiency (FXPOI). Reprod Health. 2014;11:67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tassone F, Beilina A, Carosi C, Albertosi S, Bagni C, Li L, et al. Elevated FMR1 mRNA in premutation carriers is due to increased transcription. RNA. 2007;13:555–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sherman SL, Curnow EC, Easley CA, Jin P, Hukema RK, Tejada M, et al. Use of model systems to understand the etiology of fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency (FXPOI). J Neurodev Disord. 2014;6:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kronquist KE, Sherman SL, Spector EB. Clinical significance of tri-nucleotide repeats in Fragile X testing: a clarification of American College of Medical Genetics guidelines. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2008;10:845–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Committee on Genetics. Committee opinion no. 469: carrier screening for Fragile X syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1008–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gleicher N, Kim A, Barad DH, Shohat-Tal A, Lazzaroni E, Michaeli T, et al. FMR1-dependent variability of ovarian aging patterns is already apparent in young oocyte donors. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barasoain M, Barrenetxea G, Huerta I, Télez M, Carrillo A, Pérez C, et al. Study of FMR1 gene association with ovarian dysfunction in a sample from the Basque Country. Gene. 2013;521:145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pastore LM, Young SL, Baker VL, Karns LB, Williams CD, Silverman LM. Elevated prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 trinucleotide repeats in women with diminished ovarian reserve. Reprod Sci. 2012;19:1226–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Lee IH, Barad DH. Association of FMR1 genotypes with in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes based on ethnicity/race. Agoulnik I, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e18781Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gleicher N, Kim A, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Differences in ovarian aging patterns between races are associated with ovarian genotypes and sub-genotypes of the FMR1 gene. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DNA screening for the important moments in life [Internet]. Counsyl. [cited 2016 Jan 26]. Available from: https://www.counsyl.com/services/family-prep-screen/clinical-info/.
  16. 16.
    Ferraretti AP, Marca AL, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of “poor response” to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;der092.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion no. 618: ovarian reserve testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e9–17.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seifer DB, Baker VL, Leader B. Age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone values for 17,120 women presenting to fertility centers within the United States. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:747–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choe SA, Kim KC, Lee JY, Kim CH, Hwang D, Jee BC. The relationship between the number of CGG repeats and serum level of anti-Müllerian hormone in women without FMR1 premutation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169:275–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gleicher N, Yu Y, Himaya E, Barad DH, Weghofer A, Wu Y-G, et al. Early decline in functional ovarian reserve in young women with low (CGGn < 26) FMR1 gene alleles. Transl Res. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 31]; Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1931524415002194
  22. 22.
    Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Kim A, Barad DH. The impact in older women of ovarian FMR1 genotypes and sub-genotypes on ovarian reserve. Veitia RA, editor. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33638.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gleicher N, Kim A, Kushnir V, Weghofer A, Shohat-Tal A, Lazzaroni E, et al. Clinical relevance of combined FSH and AMH observations in infertile women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:2136–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Oktay K, Barad DH. Correlation of triple repeats on the FMR1 (fragile X) gene to ovarian reserve: a new infertility test? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1024–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lledo B, Guerrero J, Ortiz JA, Morales R, Ten J, Llacer J, et al. Intermediate and normal sized CGG repeat on the FMR1 gene does not negatively affect donor ovarian response. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:609–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Geyter C, M’Rabet N, De Geyter J, Zürcher S, Moffat R, Bösch N, et al. Similar prevalence of expanded CGG repeat lengths in the fragile X mental retardation I gene among infertile women and among women with proven fertility: a prospective study. Genet Med. 2014;16:374–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kline JK, Kinney AM, Levin B, Brown SA, Hadd AG, Warburton D. Intermediate CGG repeat length at the FMR1 locus is not associated with hormonal indicators of ovarian age. Menopause. 2014;21:740–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pastore LM, McMurry TL, Williams CD, Baker VL, Young SL. AMH in women with diminished ovarian reserve: potential differences by FMR1 CGG repeat level. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1295–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schufreider A, McQueen DB, Lee SM, Allon R, Uhler ML, Davie J, 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;dev220.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gustin SLF, Ding VY, Desai M, Leader B, Baker VL. 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;32:1669–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elizur SE, Lebovitz O, Derech-Haim S, Dratviman-Storobinsky O, Feldman B, Dor J, et al. Elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA in Granulosa cells are associated with low ovarian reserve in FMR1 premutation carriers. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pastore LM, Johnson J. The FMR1 gene, infertility, and reproductive decision-making: a review. Front Genet. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2014 Sep 29];5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083559/.
  33. 33.
    Kelsey TW, Wright P, Nelson SM, Anderson RA, Wallace WHB. A validated model of serum anti-Müllerian hormone from conception to menopause. PLoS One. 2011;6:e22024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Prospectively assessing risk for premature ovarian senescence in young females: a new paradigm. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Jun 4];13. Available from: http://www.rbej.com/content/13/1/34.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bat-Sheva L. Maslow
    • 1
  • Stephanie Davis
    • 2
  • Lawrence Engmann
    • 1
  • John C. Nulsen
    • 1
  • Claudio A. Benadiva
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityUniversity of Connecticut School of MedicineFarmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations