Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary sex ratio in euploid embryos of consanguine couples after IVF/ICSI

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the primary sex ratio (males-to-females at time of conception) in blastocysts from consanguine couples undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments and its correlation with chromosomal constitution.

Method

A total of 5135 blastocysts were analyzed by preimplantation-genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) with next-generation sequencing (NGS) from November 2016 to December 2020. From those, a total of 1138 blastocysts were from consanguine couples (CS) and 3997 from non-consanguine couples (NCS). Only blastocysts presenting normal sex chromosome constitution with or without autosomal aneuploidies were included. Primary sex ratio (PSR) of biopsied blastocysts was compared between CS and NCS couples.

Results

Expanded blastocysts derived from CS had 47.7% XY versus 52.3% XX constitutions, presenting a PSR of 0.91. In NCS, 48.9% of expanded blastocysts were XY and 51.2% XX, with a less pronounced PSR of 0.95. When stratifying embryos by ploidy, euploid embryos from CS had the lowest PSR (0.87) with 46.6% XY versus 53.4% XX blastocysts (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70–1.14; NS), but it did not achieve statistical significance. The lower PSR seemed rather related to euploid embryos from first-degree cousins (PSR = 0.80 versus 0.98 in second-degree cousins, NS). Euploid embryos from NCS presented a PSR of 0.96, with 49.1% XY versus 50.9% XX blastocysts (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79–1.22; NS). Significant differences in prevalence of euploidy of specific chromosomes were encountered between CS and NCS.

Conclusions

The primary sex ratio was generally similar in expanded blastocysts from consanguine and non-consanguine couples, with a slight decrease in primary sex ratio of euploid blastocysts from consanguine couples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages: preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Community Genet. 2012;3:185–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidari F, Dastgiri S, Akbari R, Khamnian Z, Khanlarzadeh E, Baradaran M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of consanguineous marriage. Electron J Gen Med [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Jun 30];11. Available from: http://www.ejgm.co.uk/article/prevalence-and-risk-factors-of-consanguineousmarriage-7175

  3. Bennett RL, Motulsky AG, Bittles A, Hudgins L, Uhrich S, Doyle DL, et al. Genetic counseling and screening of consanguineous couples and their offspring: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2002;11:97–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Obeidat BR, Khader YS, Amarin ZO, Kassawneh M, Al OM. Consanguinity and adverse pregnancy outcomes: the North of Jordan experience. Matern Child Health J. 2010;14:283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maghsoudlou S, Cnattingius S, Aarabi M, Montgomery SM, Semnani S, Stephansson O, et al. Consanguineous marriage, prepregnancy maternal characteristics and stillbirth risk: a population-based case–control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:1095–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fareed M, Afzal M. Estimating the inbreeding depression on cognitive behavior: a population based study of child cohort. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e109585.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bittles AH. The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Popul Dev Rev. 1994;20:561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Inhorn MC, Kobeissi L, Nassar Z, Lakkis D, Fakih MH. Consanguinity and family clustering of male factor infertility in Lebanon. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Melado L, Lawrenz B, Loja R, Coughlan C, Altobelli G, Bayram A, et al. Female parental consanguinity is associated with a reduced ovarian reserve. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;S1472648321005940.

  10. Bittles AH, Black ML. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:1779–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Minasi MG, Fiorentino F, Ruberti A, Biricik A, Cursio E, Cotroneo E, et al. Genetic diseases and aneuploidies can be detected with a single blastocyst biopsy: a successful clinical approach. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1770–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lakshmi LPS, Professor and HOD, Dept of Anatomy, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India, D A, Associate Professor, Dept of Anatomy, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India, Kadandale JS, Consultant cytogenetist, Division of cytogenetic, Dept of Anatomy, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India, et al. Consanguinity and chromosomal abnormalities. Int J Anat Res. 2017;5:4531–7.

  13. Pashaei M, Abdi A, Mousavi F, Bagherizadeh I, Dokhanchi A, Ghadami E, et al. Prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in patients with consanguineous marriages referred to Sarem Women’s Hospital, Tehran. Iran Sarem J Med Res. 2021;6:85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Melado L, Lawrenz B, Nogueira D, Raberi A, Patel R, Bayram A, et al. Features of chromosomal abnormalities in relation to consanguinity: analysis of 10,556 blastocysts from IVF/ICSI cycles with PGT-A from consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples. Sci Rep. 2023;13:8857.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lazzari G, Colleoni S, Duchi R, Galli A, Houghton FD, Galli C. Embryonic genotype and inbreeding affect preimplantation development in cattle. Reproduction. 2011;141:625–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Influence of embryo sex on development to the blastocyst stage and euploidy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:936–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Korkidakis A, Groff A, Shah JS, Leung AQ, Penzias AS, Sakkas D. The effect of X-chromosome copy number on blastulation time in embryos with sex chromosome aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:e149–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Raznahan A, Parikshak NN, Chandran V, Blumenthal JD, Clasen LS, Alexander-Bloch AF, et al. Sex-chromosome dosage effects on gene expression in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:7398–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:124–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Escribà M-J, Vendrell X, Peinado V. Segmental aneuploidy in human blastocysts: a qualitative and quantitative overview. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17:76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chao F, Kc S, Ombao H. Estimation and probabilistic projection of levels and trends in the sex ratio at birth in seven provinces of Nepal from 1980 to 2050: a Bayesian modeling approach. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:358.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. National Vitals Statistics Reports. 2005;53(20):1–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Oniya O, Neves K, Ahmed B, Konje JC. A review of the reproductive consequences of consanguinity. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;232:87–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shawky RM, Elsayed SM, Zaki ME, Nour El-Din SM, Kamal FM. Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2013;14:157–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Patrat C, Ouimette J-F, Rougeulle C. X chromosome inactivation in human development. Development. 2020;147:dev183095.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hayashi MT, Karlseder J. DNA damage associated with mitosis and cytokinesis failure. Oncogene. 2013;32:4593–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hentemann MA, Briskemyr S, Bertheussen K. Blastocyst transfer and gender: IVF versus ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:433–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luna M, Duke M, Copperman A, Grunfeld L, Sandler B, Barritt J. Blastocyst embryo transfer is associated with a sex-ratio imbalance in favor of male offspring. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:519–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Richter K, Anderson M, Osborn B. Selection for faster development does not bias sex ratios resulting from blastocyst embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:460–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bronet F, Nogales M-C, Martínez E, Ariza M, Rubio C, García-Velasco J-A, et al. Is there a relationship between time-lapse parameters and embryo sex? Fertil Steril. 2015;103:396-401.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Serdarogullari M, Findikli N, Goktas C, Sahin O, Ulug U, Yagmur E, et al. Comparison of gender-specific human embryo development characteristics by time-lapse technology. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ART Fertility Clinics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Daniela Nogueira, Human M. Fatemi, Barbara Lawrenz, Ibrahim Elkhatib, Andrea Abdala, Aşina Bayram & Laura Melado

  2. INOVIE Fertilité, Toulouse, France

    Daniela Nogueira

Authors
  1. Daniela Nogueira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Human M. Fatemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Lawrenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibrahim Elkhatib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Abdala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aşina Bayram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laura Melado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Nogueira.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nogueira, D., Fatemi, H.M., Lawrenz, B. et al. Primary sex ratio in euploid embryos of consanguine couples after IVF/ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet 41, 957–965 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03044-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03044-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation