Association Between Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Receptor (FSHR) rs6166 and Estrogen Receptor 1 (ESR1) rs2234693 Polymorphisms and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Risk, Phenotype, and Reproductive Outcomes in an Infertile Portuguese Population

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder often leading to anovulatory infertility. PCOS pathophysiology is still unclear and several potential genetic susceptibility factors have been proposed. The effect of polymorphisms in two genesrelated to follicular recruitment and development, the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) and the estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1), have been studied in different populations with contradictory results. AIMS To evaluate the influence of FSHR rs6166 (c.2039A>G) and of ESR1 rs2234693 (Pvull c.453-397 T > C) polymorphisms on PCOS risk, phenotype, and response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). MATERIALS AND METHODS Genotyping of the FSHR rs6166 and the ESR1 rs2234693 polymorphisms was performed in PCOS women and a control group undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Demographic, clinical, and biochemical data, genotype frequency, and IVF outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS We evaluated 88 PCOS women and 80 controls. There was no significant difference in the genotype distribution of FSHR rs6166 polymorphism between PCOS women and controls (AA 31.8%/AS 48.9%/SS 19.3% in PCOS women vs AA 37.5%/AS 40.0%/SS 22.5% in controls; p = 0.522). The same was true for the ESR1 rs2234693 (CC 24.1%/CT 46.0%/TT 29.9% in PCOS women vs CC 18.8%/CT 48.8%/TT 32.5% in controls; p = 0.697). In PCOS women, we found higher follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels on the third day of the menstrual cycle associated with the SS variant of the FSHR polymorphism (9.2 vs 6.2 ± 1.6 and 5.6 ± 1.6 mUI/mL; p = 0.011). We did not find other associations between the baseline hormonal parameters, antral follicle count, and response measures to COS with FSHR or ESR1 genotypes. We found, however, a need for higher cumulative doses of FSH for COS in patients with the SS variant of the FSHR rs6166 polymorphism (1860.5 ± 627.8 IU for SSvs 1498.1 ± 359.3 for AA and 1425.4 ± 474.8 for SA; p = 0.046 and p = 0.046). CONCLUSION Our data suggest that in the population, FSHR rs6166and ESR1 rs2234693 polymorphisms do not influence the risk of developing PCOS nor do they influence the patient's phenotype and IVF success. However, the SS variant of the FSHR rs6166 polymorphism may be associated with FSH resistance requiring higher FSH doses for COS.