
THE PREVALENCE OF Y CHROMOSOME MICRO-
DELETIONS AMONG INFERTILE MALES
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Plaseski T1,2, Dimitrovski C2, Kocevska B2, Efremov GD1, Plaseska-Karanfilska D1* *Corresponding Author: Dr. Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Research Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Av. Krste Misirkov 2, POB 428, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia; Tel.: +389-2-3235-410 Fax: +389-2-3115-434; E-mail: dijana@manu.edu.mk page: 39
|
DISCUSSION
The overall prevalence of micro-deletions among nearly 5,000 infertile men, published in the literature, is 8% [7]. However, the incidence of Y micro-deletions in infertile men varies greatly between studies, from 1% [4] to 55% [5]. This variability can be explained by factors related to: 1) study design (inclusion criteria, clinical definition of patients); 2) lack of rigorous testing of negative results (false deletions); and 3) ethnic and geographic differences of the studied populations. A recent review article comparing four different populations studied by a similar set of primers and using homogenous criteria for definition of idiopathic infertility, has shown that the main factor influencing deletion frequency is the composition of the study population, while ethnic or geographical differences have no influence [14]. Micro-deletions were found almost exclusively in infertile men with azoospermia and severe oligozoospermia (sperm concentrations of <5 x 106/mL). Deletions are extremely rare in men with a sperm concentration of >5 x 106/mL [6,7].
Among the 109 infertile male patients studied we have detected a total of seven micro-deletions. Six of the patients with deletions were affected with azoospermia, while one was diagnosed as severely oligozoospermic. Thus, the overall frequency of Y chromosome micro-deletions among infertile males from the Republic of Macedonia is 6.4%. (16.7% among men with azoospermia, 2.8% among men with oligozoospermia <5 x 106/mL, and 9.7% among men with a sperm count of <5 x 106/mL). No deletion was identified among the infertile patients with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia >5 x 106/mL and normoasthenoteratozoospermia. These data are in agreement with those already published in the literature.
Among the seven patients with micro-deletions, detected in our study, six carried a deletion limited to the AZFc region, while one had a larger deletion involving two AZF regions (b and c). Our results, confirm that AZFc deletions are the most common Y micro-deletions.
Many authors have tried to make genotype-spermatogenic phenotype correlation in patients with Y micro-deletions. However, these studies have shown that similar or identical deletions can cause different impairments of spermatogenesis. In our study, five of the six patients with AZFc deletions presented with azoospermia and one with severe oligozoospermia. The testicular histology was available in three of the patients with AZFc deletions, and showed SCOS in two and hypospermatogenesis in one. Our results support the observation that the most common Y micro-deletions, the AZFc deletions, are associated with different seminal pattern and testicular histology.
Of the seven patients with micro-deletions, six demonstrated no etiological cause of infertility, whereas in one a varicocele was present. Thus, our study confirmed the previous observations that Y deletions are present in patients with non idiopathic infertility [15-17]. This supports the relevance of micro-deletion screening in patients with evident cause of infertility, such as a varicocele.
Although Y micro-deletions are compatible with natural transmission [18,19], the vast majority of Y micro-deletion arise as a de novo event [20]. Family studies were available in one of our patients with a deletion and we have demonstrated that the AZFc deletion in this patient had arisen as a de novo event.
|
|
|
|



 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (2), 2024 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (1), 2024 |
Number 26 Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one |
Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 |
Number 26 VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement |
Number 26 VOL. 26(1), 2023 |
Number 25 VOL. 25(2), 2022 |
Number 25 VOL. 25 (1), 2022 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(2), 2021 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(1), 2021 |
Number 23 VOL. 23(2), 2020 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(2), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(1), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement |
Number 21 VOL. 21(2), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21 (1), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (2), 2017 |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (1), 2017 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (2), 2016 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (1), 2016 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (2), 2015 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (1), 2015 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (2), 2014 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (1), 2014 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (2), 2013 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (1), 2013 |
Number 15 VOL. 15 (2), 2012 |
Number 15 VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement |
Number 15 Vol. 15 (1), 2012 |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011 |
Number 14 The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011 |
Number 13 Vol. 13 (2), 2010 |
Number 13 Vol.13 (1), 2010 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (2), 2009 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (1), 2009 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (2),2008 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (1),2008 |
Number 10 Vol.10 (2), 2007 |
Number 10 10 (1),2007 |
Number 9 1&2, 2006 |
Number 9 3&4, 2006 |
Number 8 1&2, 2005 |
Number 8 3&4, 2004 |
Number 7 1&2, 2004 |
Number 6 3&4, 2003 |
Number 6 1&2, 2003 |
Number 5 3&4, 2002 |
Number 5 1&2, 2002 |
Number 4 Vol.3 (4), 2000 |
Number 4 Vol.2 (4), 1999 |
Number 4 Vol.1 (4), 1998 |
Number 4 3&4, 2001 |
Number 4 1&2, 2001 |
Number 3 Vol.3 (3), 2000 |
Number 3 Vol.2 (3), 1999 |
Number 3 Vol.1 (3), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.3(2), 2000 |
Number 2 Vol.1 (2), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.2 (2), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.3 (1), 2000 |
Number 1 Vol.2 (1), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.1 (1), 1998 |
|
|