The Variations of Metabolic Detoxification Enzymes Lead to Recurrent Miscarriage and Their Diagnosis Strategy

Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms and their role in recurrent pregnancy loss: A genetic risk assessment

Objective

The frequency of recurrent pregnancy loss in society is 3-5%. Experts suggest that genetics account for over 80% of unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) enzymes, regulated by GST genes, facilitate the detoxification of a variety of naturally occurring metabolites as well as environmentally derived chemicals. This research aimed to investigate GST gene polymorphisms as a potential risk factor in recurrent pregnancy loss etiology in the Turkish population.

Materials and Methods

This study involved 107 recurrent pregnancy loss patients who sought treatment at the Sivas Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Genetics, along with a control group of 107 individuals who had a successful birth and no previous history of miscarriage. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphism techniques were employed to analyze GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 gene polymorphisms in these cases.

Results

GSTT1 null genotype (X2=4.74; p=0.029) and GSTT1/GSM1 null genotype (X2=3.333; p=0.047) were associated with statistically significant differences between the study groups. No statistical significance was detected when considering the GSTM1 null genotype (X2=3.326; p=0.068) or the GSTM1/GSTP1 and GSTT1/GSTP1 gene polymorphisms.

Conclusion

A statistically significant association was observed between the GSTT1 null genotype and the diseased group. Our research demonstrated a substantial increase in the risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in the Turkish population, specifically among individuals with the GSTM1-null genotype. No statistical correlation was found between the GSTM1 and GSTP1 gene polymorphisms and recurrent pregnancy loss. Furthermore, no statistical significance was observed when they were assessed together.

Anti-proliferation and apoptosis induced via the mTOR/PGC-1α signaling pathway in trophoblast cells of miscarriage

Miscarriage is a common complication during early pregnancy and affects approximately 10%-15% of all pregnant women. Several studies have reported that the abnormal expression of mitochondrial oxidative stress-related genes might be involved in the occurrence and progression of miscarriage. The present study attempted to uncover the role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1α (PGC-1α) in miscarriage chorionic villous tissue. The hypothesis that PGC-1α is crucial for glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation during early pregnancy was tested. The results showed that the mRNA and protein levels of PGC-1α were significantly increased in the miscarriage chorionic villous tissues compared with the artificial selective abortion group, and that the expression was regulated by mTOR in knockdown and overexpression of mTOR in HTR8 cell lines. PGC-1α also promoted mitochondrion oxidative phosphorylation but inhibited glycolysis process. In addition, PGC-1α could drive ROS production, reduce mitochondrial membrane potential and block NADPH synthesis, resulting in cell cycle arrest and cell apoptosis, eventually leading to miscarriage. These results suggested that the aberrant expression of PGC-1α is involved in the etiology of early miscarriage, providing new perspectives regarding the mechanisms of miscarriage and a potential therapeutic target for miscarriage.

Embryo development and live birth resulted from artificial oocyte activation after microdissection testicular sperm extraction with ICSI in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia

INTRODUCTION

The application of microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) to retrieve the sperm of patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) has greatly increased. Patients with NOA often have poor quality sperm. Unfortunately, there are few studies on artificial oocyte activation (AOA) performed on patients who successfully retrieved motile and immotile sperm by micro-TESE after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Therefore, this study sought to obtain more comprehensive evidence-based data and embryo development outcomes to aid consultation of patients with NOA who opted to receive assisted reproductive techniques and to determine whether AOA needs to be performed in different motile sperm after ICSI.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 235 patients with NOA who underwent micro-TESE to retrieve adequate sperm for ICSI between January 2018 and December 2020. A total of 331 ICSI cycles were performed in the 235 couples. Embryological, clinical, and neonatal outcomes were demonstrated comprehensively between motile sperm and immotile sperm using AOA and non-AOA treatment.

RESULTS

Motile sperm injection with AOA (group 1) showed significantly higher fertility rate (72.77% vs. 67.59%, p=0.005), 2 pronucleus (2PN) fertility rate (64.33% vs. 60.22%, p=0.036), and miscarriage rate (17.65% vs. 2.44%, p=0.018) compared with motile sperm injection with non-AOA (group 2). Group 1 had comparable available embryo rate (41.29% vs. 40.74%, p=0.817), good embryo rate (13.44% vs. 15.44%, p=0.265), and without an embryo for transfer rate (10.85% vs. 9.90%, p=0.815) compared with group 2. Immotile sperm injection with AOA (group 3) displayed significantly higher fertility rate (78.56% vs. 67.59%, p=0.000), 2PN fertility rate (67.36% vs. 60.22%, p=0.001), without an embryo for transfer rate (23.76% vs. 9.90%, p=0.008), and miscarriage rate (20.00% vs. 2.44%, p=0.014), but significantly lower available embryo rate (26.63% vs.40.74%, p=0.000) and good embryo rate (15.44% vs. 6.99%, p=0.000) compared with group 2. In groups 1, 2, and 3, the rates of implantation (34.87%, 31.85% and 28.00%, respectively; p=0.408), clinical pregnancy (43.87%, 41.00%, and 34.48%, respectively; p=0.360) and live birth (36.13%, 40.00%, and 27.59%, respectively; p=0.194) were similar.

DISCUSSION

For those patients with NOA from whom adequate sperm were retrieved for ICSI, AOA could improve fertilization rate, but not embryo quality and live birth outcomes. For patients with NOA and only immotile sperm, AOA can help achieve acceptable fertilization rate and live birth outcomes. AOA is recommended for patients with NOA only when immotile sperm are injected.