Possible role of androgen receptor gene in therapeutic response of infertile men with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism

Figures & data

Table 1. Frequency of CAG and GGN repeats in each of the studied groups.

	No. of CAG repeats (n = 31)				No. of GGN repeats (n = 31)
	Positive respondersto the treatment	n	Negative responders to the treatment	n	Positive responders to the treatment	n	Negative responders to the treatment	n
	16	1	17	4	17	1	17	1
	17	1	20	3	18	1	19	1
	18	3	21	2	19	3	20	5
	19	5	22	5	20	3	21	1
	20	6	23	3	21	2	22	3
	21	6	24	6	22	3	23	12
	22	3	25	5	23	10	24	6
	23	2	26	3	24	7	25	2
	24	1			26	1
	25	3
Mean ± SD	20.61 ± 2.29		22.45 ± 2.75		22.06 ± 2.13		22.35 ± 1.87
P-value	0.006^a				0.617^b

^aUsing t-test

^bUsing Mann–Whitney U test

Figure 1. Percent distribution of the number of CAG and GGN repeats in hypogonadotropic hypogonadism patients with the positive response and negative response. Besides the significant shorter median number of CAG repeats (P = 0.006) in positive responders than that of in negative one, also a shift toward shorter repeat length of CAG repeats among positive responders was observed which was not seen in GGN repeats.

Table 2. Oligonucleotide primer sequences for CAG & GGN evaluation.

Analysis Type	Primer sequences	Product Size	Primer Tm
CAG evaluation	F: 5-TCCAGAATCTGTTCCAGAGCGTGC-3 R: 5ʹ-GCTGTGAAGGTTGCTGTTCCTCAT-3’	286	60°C
GGN evaluation	F: 5ʹ-CGGTTCTGGGTCACCCTCA-3ʹ R: 5ʹ-TCACCATGCCGCCAGGGTA-3’	263	61°C