Issues in reproductive health in chromosome translocation carriers

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is common a wide range of reproductive disorders in couples with structural chromosome aberration in one of the partners, such as infertility, miscarriage, unsuccessful assisted reproductive technologies attempts. In this regard, predicting the reproductive outcome in a particular couple is an extremely difficult task. To solve it, it is necessary to consider the influence of many factors, including the type of chromosome translocation and the carrier’s sex.

AIM: To evaluate the structure of reproductive disorders in couples where one of the partners was a chromosome translocation carrier, depending on its type: Robertsonian or reciprocal, and carrier’s sex.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the clinical and anamnestic data of 100 couples where one of the partners was a chromosome translocation carrier. Couples applied to fertility centers between March 2009 and May 2019. To assess the effect of the type of chromosomal translocation and carrier’s sex, we provided intergroup comparisons.

RESULTS: Comparative analysis of somatic pathology and chronic gynecological diseases didn’t reveal significant differences between groups of female patients (Fischer’s exact test, p > 0,05). An intergroup comparison of reproductive outcomes in couples divided by the type of chromosome translocation: reciprocal or Robertsonian, and the carrier’s sex, detected significant differences. Primary infertility was significantly more often detected in couples with a male translocation carrier, secondary — with a female carrier (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0,01). Pregnancy significantly more frequent occurred and, it was also significantly more often spontaneously interrupted in couples with a female carrying of reciprocal or Robertson translocation (χ2 = 13,29, df = 3, p = 0,004). Thus, a female carrying a chromosomal translocation is characterized by a greater risk of miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS: The chromosome translocation type and the carrier’s sex have a differential effect on the nature of reproductive disorders. Female carrying a chromosomal translocation increases the likelihood of both pregnancy and its spontaneous termination. In contrast, in couples with a male translocation carrier, the probability of both pregnancy and miscarriage is lower. Thus, the type of translocation and the carrier’s sex determine the individual risks of reproductive disorders, including infertility and miscarriage, which should be considered in the planning, choosing the method of onset and management of pregnancy.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Yulia V. Shilenkova

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Author for correspondence.
Email: shil.giulia@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4992-9905
SPIN-code: 1417-9786
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Anna A. Pendina

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: pendina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9182-9188
SPIN-code: 3123-2133
ResearcherId: F-4396-2017

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Elena M. Fedorova

AVA-PETER Ltd.

Email: fedorova-em@avaclinic.ru
SPIN-code: 4652-3586

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Olga A. Efimova

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: efimova_o82@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4495-0983
SPIN-code: 6959-5014
Scopus Author ID: 14013324600
ResearcherId: F-5764-2014

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Olga G. Chiryaeva

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: chiryaeva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4441-1736
SPIN-code: 4027-4908
Scopus Author ID: 6508206377
ResearcherId: K-2566-2018

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Lubov' I. Petrova

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: petrovaluba@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 8599-6886

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Vera S. Dudkina

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: dudkinavs@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8542-0255
SPIN-code: 6286-7287
ResearcherId: K-2600-2018

Cand. Sci. (Biol.) 

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Andrei V. Tikhonov

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: tixonov5790@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2557-6642
SPIN-code: 3170-2629
ResearcherId: Q-1380-2016

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Alexander M. Gzgzyan

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: agzgzyan@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3917-9493
SPIN-code: 6412-4801
ResearcherId: G-7814-2015

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Olesya N. Bespalova

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: shiggerra@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6542-5953
SPIN-code: 4732-8089
ResearcherId: D-3880-2018

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Igor Yu. Kogan

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: ikogan@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7351-6900
SPIN-code: 6572-6450
Scopus Author ID: 56895765600
ResearcherId: P-4357-2017

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, et al. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506–1512. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem046
  2. Polis CB, Cox CM, Tunçalp Ö, et al. Estimating infertility prevalence in low-to-middle-income countries: an application of a current duration approach to demographic and health survey data. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(5):1064–1074. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex025
  3. Shah K, Sivapalan G, Gibbons N, et al. The genetic basis of infertility. Reproduction. 2003;126(1):13–25. doi: 10.1530/rep.0.1260013
  4. Krausz C, Riera-Escamilla A. Genetics of male infertility. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15(6):369–384. doi: 10.1038/s41585-018-0003-3
  5. Zorrilla M, Yatsenko AN. The genetics of infertility: current status of the field. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2013;1(4). doi: 10.1007/s40142-013-0027-1
  6. Wilch ES, Morton CC. Historical and clinical perspectives on chromosomal translocations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1044:1–14. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-0593-1_1
  7. Bochkov NP, Kuleshov NP, Chebotarev AN, et al. Population cytogenetic investigation of newborns in Moscow. Humangenetik. 1974;22(2):139–152. doi: 10.1007/BF00278453
  8. Hamerton JL, Canning N, Ray M, et al. A cytogenetic survey of 14,069 newborn infants. I. Incidence of chromosome abnormalities. Clin Genet. 1975;8(4):223–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1975.tb01498.x
  9. Hansteen IL, Varslot K, Steen-Johnsen J, et al. Cytogenetic screening of a new-born population. Clin Genet. 1982;21(5):309–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1982.tb01377.x
  10. Jacobs PA, Melville M, Ratcliffe S, et al. A cytogenetic survey of 11,680 newborn infants. Ann Hum Genet. 1974;37(4):359–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1974.tb01843.x
  11. Nielsen J, Sillesen I. Incidence of chromosome aberrations among 11148 newborn children. Humangenetik. 1975;30(1):1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00273626
  12. Nielsen J, Wohlert M. Chromosome abnormalities found among 34,910 newborn children: results from a 13-year incidence study in Arhus, Denmark. Hum Genet. 1991;87(1):81–83. doi: 10.1007/BF01213097
  13. Artini PG, Papini F, Ruggiero M, et al. Genetic screening in Italian infertile couples undergoing intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization techniques: a multicentric study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27(7):453–457. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2011.579207
  14. Testart J, Gautier E, Brami C, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile patients with structural chromosome abnormalities. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(12):2609–2612. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a01917
  15. Meza-Espinoza JP, Anguiano LO, Rivera H. Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with reproductive disorders. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2008;66(4):237–240. doi: 10.1159/000147170
  16. Peschka B, Leygraaf J, Van der Ven K, et al. Type and frequency of chromosome aberrations in 781 couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2257–2263. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2257
  17. Jesus AR, Silva-Soares S, Silva J, et al. Reproductive success of assisted reproductive technology in couples with chromosomal abnormalities. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(7):1471–1479. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01486-x
  18. Castle D, Bernstein R. Cytogenetic analysis of 688 couples experiencing multiple spontaneous abortions. Am J Med Genet. 1988;29(3):549–556. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320290312
  19. Awartani KA, Al Shabibi MS. Description of cytogenetic abnormalities and the pregnancy outcomes of couples with recurrent pregnancy loss in a tertiary-care center in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(3):239–242. doi: 10.15537/smj.2018.3.21592
  20. Elkarhat Z, Kindil Z, Zarouf L, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with recurrent spontaneous miscarriage: a 21-year retrospective study, a report of a novel insertion, and a literature review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(3):499–507. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1373-4
  21. Ghazaey S, Keify F, Mirzaei F, et al. Chromosomal analysis of couples with repeated spontaneous abortions in northeastern Iran. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;9(1):47–54. doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2015.4208
  22. Zemlyanova EV, Chumarina VZh. Births’ postponement by women in Russia within modern socio-economic context. Social’nye aspekty zdorov’a naselenia. 2018;64(6). (In Russ.). doi: 10.21045/2071-5021-2018-64-6-9
  23. Glick I, Kadish E, Rottenstreich M. Management of pregnancy in women of advanced maternal age: improving outcomes for mother and baby. Int J Womens Health. 2021;13:751–759. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S283216
  24. Waldenström U. Postponing parenthood to advanced age. Ups J Med Sci. 2016;121(4):235–243. doi: 10.1080/03009734.2016.1201553
  25. Guedes M, Canavarro MC. Characteristics of primiparous women of advanced age and their partners: a homogenous or heterogenous group?. Birth. 2014;41(1):46–55. doi: 10.1111/birt.12089
  26. Mayeur A, Ahdad N, Hesters L, et al. Does the prognosis after PGT for structural rearrangement differ between female and male translocation carriers?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40(5):684–692. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.01.025
  27. Song H, Shi H, Yang ET, et al. Effects of gender of reciprocal chromosomal translocation on blastocyst formation and pregnancy outcome in preimplantation genetic testing. Front Endocrinol. 2021;12. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.704299
  28. Fodina V, Dudorova A, Alksere B, et al. The application of PGT-A for carriers of balanced structural chromosomal rearrangements. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(sup.1):18–23. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1632091
  29. Mateu-Brull E, Rodrigo L, Peinado V, et al. Interchromosomal effect in carriers of translocations and inversions assessed by preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (PGT-SR). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2547–2555. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01593-9
  30. Zhang L, Wei D, Zhu Y, et al. Interaction of acrocentric chromosome involved in translocation and sex of the carrier influences the proportion of alternate segregation in autosomal reciprocal translocations. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(2):380–387. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey367
  31. Mahdavi M, Sharafi SM, Daniali SS, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal translocation carriers: a meta-analysis. Glob Med Genet. 2020;7(1):14–21. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1712455
  32. Zhang L, Jiang W, Zhu Y, et al. Effects of a carrier’s sex and age on the segregation patterns of the trivalent of Robertsonian translocations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(9):1963–1969. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01534-6
  33. Maithripala S, Durland U, Havelock J, et al. prevalence and treatment choices for couples with recurrent pregnancy loss due to structural chromosomal anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40(6):655–662. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.09.024
  34. Kato K, Aoyama N, Kawasaki N, et al. Reproductive outcomes following preimplantation genetic diagnosis using fluorescence in situ hybridization for 52 translocation carrier couples with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. J Hum Genet. 2016;61(8):687–692. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2016.39
  35. Huang C, Jiang W, Zhu Y, et al. Pregnancy outcomes of reciprocal translocation carriers with two or more unfavorable pregnancy histories: before and after preimplantation genetic testing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(11):2325–2331. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01585-9
  36. Iews M, Tan J, Taskin O, et al. Does preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve reproductive outcome in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss owing to structural chromosomal rearrangement? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(6):677–685. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.005
  37. Chen CK, Wu D, Yu HT, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis by fluorescence in situ hybridization of reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(1):48–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2012.04.043
  38. Gardner RJM, Sutherland G., Shaffer L. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. doi: 10.1093/med/9780195375336.001.0001
  39. Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S, et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1925–1935. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der082
  40. Hann MC, Lau PE, Tempest HG. Meiotic recombination and male infertility: from basic science to clinical reality? Asian J Androl. 2011;13(2):212–218. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.1
  41. Harton GL, Tempest HG. Chromosomal disorders and male infertility. Asian J Androl. 2012;14(1):32–39. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.66
  42. Morin SJ, Eccles J, Iturriaga A, et al. Translocations, inversions and other chromosome rearrangements. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.013
  43. Marchetti F, Wyrobek AJ. Mechanisms and consequences of paternally-transmitted chromosomal abnormalities. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2005;75(2):112–129. doi: 10.1002/bdrc.20040
  44. Yin B, Zhu Y, Wu T, et al. Clinical outcomes for couples containing a reciprocal chromosome translocation carrier without preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136(3):304–308. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12062
  45. Li S, Chen M, Zheng PS. Analysis of parental abnormal chromosomal karyotype and subsequent live births in Chinese couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98606-4
  46. Franssen MT, Korevaar JC, van der Veen F, et al. Reproductive outcome after chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: index [corrected]-control study. BMJ. 2006;332(7544):759–763. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38735.459144.2F

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. The results of karyotyping PHA-stimulated lymphocytes: а — karyotype 46,XX,t(6;14)(p12;q21), female reciprocal translocation carrier; b — karyotype 45,XY,der(13;14)(q10;q10), male Robertsonian translocation carrier

Download (122KB)
3. Fig. 2. Study groups according to the carrier’s sex and translocation type

Download (246KB)
4. Fig. 3. Comparative analysis of the frequency of primary and secondary infertility in couples according to the carrier’s sex and translocation type — reciprocal or Robertsonian. * statistically significant differences (Fisher’s exact test)

Download (176KB)
5. Fig. 4. Comparative analysis of reproductive disorders in married couples according to the carrier’s sex and translocation type — reciprocal or Robertsonian. * statistically significant differences (φ — Fisher’s exact test, χ2 — chi-square test)

Download (214KB)
6. Fig. 5. Reproductive disorders depending on the chromosome translocation carrier’s sex

Download (260KB)

Copyright (c) 2022 Eсо-Vector



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 66759 от 08.08.2016 г. 
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия Эл № 77 - 6389
от 15.07.2002 г.



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies