Meta-analysis reveals significant associations between GSTP1 gene variants and male infertility, suggesting genetic links.
Introduction: Male infertility and prostate cancer are both significant global health issues. Male infertility refers to the failure to conceive after a year of unprotected sexual intercourse. Prostate cancer, primarily found in older men, poses a substantial health risk globally. Recent research suggests a possible connection between male reproductive dysfunction and prostate carcinoma. Methodology: A thorough analysis of existing literature was undertaken utilizing automated databases, which included Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar. In conducting this meta-analysis, we implemented the standards charted by the PRISMA guidelines. Findings were included investigating the link between GSTP1 gene variants, estrogen receptor genes (PvuII, XbaI, and AluI), male infertility, and prostate cancer. Criteria for inclusion required case vs. control study designs providing data on genotype and allele frequencies. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and assessment of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) were employed for evaluating methodological quality. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with significance defined as p < 0.05. Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 24 case-control studies. Significant associations were observed between GSTP1 gene polymorphisms, particularly the Ile105Val genotype, and male infertility and prostate cancer in the allelic and homozygote models. However, substantial correlations involving the estrogen receptor gene polymorphisms (PvuII, XbaI, and AluI) and male infertility or prostate cancer were not found. Conclusion: The meta-analysis shows a significant correlation between GSTP1 gene variations and both impaired male fertility and prostatic carcinoma. These results indicate a possible genetic predisposition to these conditions, underscoring the demand for additional exploration to elucidate the function of genetic influences in male reproductive health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: