RESUMEN
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are harmful compounds that enter the environment naturally or through anthropogenic activities and disrupt normal endocrine functions in humans, adversely affecting reproductive health. Among the most significant sources of EDC contaminants are the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and packaging industries. EDCs have been identified to have a deteriorating effect on male reproductive system, as evidenced by the increasing number of male infertility cases. A large number of case studies have been published in which men exposed to EDCs experienced testicular cancer, undescended testicles, a decrease in serum testosterone levels, and poor semen quality. Furthermore, epidemiological evidence suggested a link between prenatal EDC exposure and cryptorchidism or undescended testicles, hypospadias, and decreased anogenital distance in infants. The majority of these findings, however, are incongruent due to the lack of long-term follow-up studies that would demonstrate EDCs to be associated with male reproductive disorders. This review aims to provide an overview on recent scientific progress on the association of EDCs to male reproductive health with special emphasis on its toxicity and possible mechanism of EDCs that disrupt male reproductive system.
Asunto(s)
Criptorquidismo , Disruptores Endocrinos , Neoplasias Testiculares , Embarazo , Lactante , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Disruptores Endocrinos/toxicidad , Análisis de Semen , Salud Reproductiva , Criptorquidismo/inducido químicamente , Criptorquidismo/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Werner syndrome (WS) is an autosomal recessive progeroid syndrome caused by variants in WRN. The International Registry of Werner Syndrome has identified biallelic pathogenic variants in 179/188 cases of classical WS. In the remaining nine cases, only one heterozygous pathogenic variant has been identified. METHODS: Targeted long-read sequencing (T-LRS) on an Oxford Nanopore platform was used to search for a second pathogenic variant in WRN. Previously, T-LRS was successfully used to identify missing variants and analyse complex rearrangements. RESULTS: We identified a second pathogenic variant in eight of nine unsolved WS cases. In five cases, T-LRS identified intronic splice variants that were confirmed by either RT-PCR or exon trapping to affect splicing; in one case, T-LRS identified a 339 kbp deletion, and in two cases, pathogenic missense variants. Phasing of long reads predicted all newly identified variants were on a different haplotype than the previously known variant. Finally, in one case, RT-PCR previously identified skipping of exon 20; however, T-LRS did not detect a pathogenic DNA sequence variant. CONCLUSION: T-LRS is an effective method for identifying missing pathogenic variants. Although limitations with computational prediction algorithms can hinder the interpretation of variants, T-LRS is particularly effective in identifying intronic variants.