Gene Editing Technologies in the Treatment of Genetic Infertility: A Molecular Biology Approach
Keywords:
Gene Editing, CRISPR-Cas9, Genetic Infertility, Molecular Biology, Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Reproductive OutcomesAbstract
Genetic infertility generally accounts for 15% to 30% of infertility cases. Traditional assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have shown high efficacy in improving gamete formation and function in patients with pathogenic mutations. This research paper aims to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of patients diagnosed with infertility and assess clinical pregnancy outcomes after ART procedures. This cross-sectional study enrolled 137 patients (78 women and 59 men) diagnosed with monogenic infertility at a reproductive medicine clinic in Baghdad, Iraq, between January 2024 and January 2025. Patients were divided based on the gene-editing technology used: CRISPR-Cas9 (n=52), base editing (n=46), and prime editing (n=39). Outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, live births, and hormonal changes. Of the 137 patients‚ the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were 49․6% (68 of 137) and 39․4% (54 of 137)‚ respectively․ The gene targeting efficiency was 72․1 10․8% for baseline editing‚ 68․4 12․3% for CRISPR-Cas9 editing․ and 61․5 14․2% for primary editing․ Off-target rate was significantly lower for primary editing (0․7 ± 0․5) than for baseline editing (1․4 ± 0․9) and CRISPR-Cas9 (3․8 ± 2․1)․ Treatment with primary editing technology significantly improved FSH and AMH levels‚ antral follicle count and sperm parameters. In general, gene techniques able to correct genetic infertility and base editing is more efficient than the other methods, whereas prime editing is a less aggressive approach.
References
[1] World Health Organization, “Global prevalence of infertility, infecundity, and childlessness,” World Health Organization Report, vol. 1, no. 123, pp. 885–910, 2021.
[2] W. Ombelet and J. Van Robays, “Artificial insemination history: Hurdles and milestones,” Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137–143, 2015.
[3] J. A. Doudna and E. Charpentier, “Genome editing: The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9,” Science, vol. 346, no. 6213, Art. no. 1258096, 2014, doi: 10.1126/science.1258096.
[4] V. Rolfes, U. Bittner, H. Gerhards, et al., “Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine: An ethical perspective,” Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 106–115, 2023, doi: 10.1055/a-1866-2792.
[5] World Health Organization, “Infertility definitions and terminology,” WHO Technical Report, vol. 1, no. 35, pp. 2735–2745, 2020.
[6] M. Jinek, K. Chylinski, I. Fonfara, M. Hauer, J. A. Doudna, and E. Charpentier, “A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity,” Science, vol. 337, no. 6096, pp. 816–821, 2012.
[7] P. Zhu, F. Wu, J. Mosenson, H. Zhang, T. C. He, and W. S. Wu, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing corrects dystrophin mutation in skeletal muscle stem cells in a mouse model of muscle dystrophy,” Molecular Therapy – Nucleic Acids, vol. 7, pp. 31–41, 2017.
[8] H. Ma, N. Marti-Gutierrez, S. W. Park, et al., “Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos,” Nature, vol. 548, no. 7668, pp. 413–419, 2017, doi: 10.1038/nature23305.
[9] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2017.
[10] Y. Fu, J. A. Foden, C. Khayter, et al., “High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases in human cells,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 822–826, 2013, doi: 10.1038/nbt.2623.
[11] B. Lin, Y. Ma, and S. Wu, “Multi-omics and artificial intelligence-guided data integration in chronic liver disease: Prospects and challenges for precision medicine,” OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 415–421, 2022, doi: 10.1089/omi.2022.0079.
[12] S. Medenica, D. Zivanovic, L. Batkoska, et al., “The future is coming: Artificial intelligence in the treatment of infertility could improve assisted reproduction outcomes—the value of regulatory frameworks,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 12, Art. no. 2979, 2022.
[13] R. Dada, J. Thilagavathi, S. Venkatesh, S. C. Esteves, and A. Agarwal, “Genetic testing in male infertility,” Open Reproductive Science Journal, vol. 3, pp. 42–56, 2011.
[14] K. L. O’Flynn O’Brien, A. C. Varghese, and A. Agarwal, “The genetic causes of male factor infertility: A review,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2010.
[15] P. Asero, S. La Vignera, and F. Lanzafame, “Genetic aspects of male infertility,” Journal of Andrological Sciences, vol. 17, pp. 1–16, 2010.
[16] A. Ferlin, F. Raicu, V. Gatta, D. Zuccarello, G. Palka, and C. Foresta, “Male infertility: Role of genetic background,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 734–745, 2007.
[17] K. Keymolen, K. Van Berkel, A. Vorsselmans, C. Staessen, and L. Liebaers, “Pregnancy outcome in carriers of Robertsonian translocations,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, vol. 155, no. 10, pp. 2381–2385, 2011.
[18] D. M. Selva, K. N. Hogeveen, K. Seguchi, F. Tekpetey, and G. L. Hammond, “A human sex hormone-binding globulin isoform accumulates in the acrosome during spermatogenesis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 47, pp. 45291–45298, 2002.
[19] J. J. Galan, E. Guarducci, F. Nuti, A. Gonzalez, M. Ruiz, A. Ruiz, et al., “Molecular analysis of estrogen receptor alpha gene AGATA haplotype and SNP12 in European populations: Potential protective effect for cryptorchidism and lack of association with male infertility,” Human Reproduction, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 444–449, 2007.
[20] R. Mahanta, A. Gogoi, P. N. B. Chaudhury, S. Roy, I. K. Bhattacharyya, P. Sharma, et al., “Microdeletions in the Y chromosome of infertile males with azoospermia, oligozoospermia, and asthenozoospermia from Assam, India,” World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1265–1270, 2012.
