PubMed · 10030152
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1999. Catching up.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10030152/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Familial resemblance, which arises when members within families are more similar than are unrelated pairs of individuals, may be estimated in terms of correlations (or covariances) among family members. The magnitudes of such correlations generally reflect both the extent of environmental sharing and the degree of biological relationship between the relatives. Heritability, or more appropriately multifactorial heritability or generalized heritability, quantifies the strength of the familial resemblance and represents the percentage of variance ina trait that is due to all additive familial effects including additive genetic effects and those of the familial environment. However, the traditional concept of heritability, which may be more appropriately called the genetic heritability, represents only the percentage of phenotypic variance due to additive genetic effects. Resolving the sources of familial resemblance entails other issues. For example, there may be major gene effects that may be largely or entirely nonadditive, temporal or developmental trends, and gene-gene (epistasis) and gene-environment interactions. The design of a family study determines which of these sources are resolvable. For example, in intact nuclear families consisting of parents and offspring, the genetic and familial environmental effects are not resolvable because these relatives share both genes and environments. However, extended pedigrees and twin and adoption study designs allow separation of the heritable effects and, possibly, more complex etiologies, including interactions. Various factors affect the estimation and interpretability of heritability, for example, assumptions regarding linearity and additivity of the effects, assortative mating, and the underlying distribution of the data. Nonnormality of the data can lead to errors in hypothesis testing, although it yields reasonably unbiased estimates. Fortunately, these and other complications can be directly modeled in many of the sophisticated software packages available today in genetic epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the position, extent, and frequency of Y chromosome microdeletions in Taiwanese patients presenting with nonobstructive azoospermia, and to investigate the effect of microdeletions on reproductive decisions. METHODS: We studied 176 consecutive men with azoospermia in our urology clinic. Polymerase chain reaction tests were performed in 94 patients with nonobstructive azoospermia, and a series of 27 sequence-tagged sites (STSs) mapped within intervals 5 and 6 of Yq11 was selected for analysis. Clinical genetics counseling was provided to couples with microdeletions, and these couples made their own choices about further treatment modalities. RESULTS: Among 94 patients screened for microdeletion, 11 (11.7%) showed microdeletions of one or more STSs. One had a deletion confined to the azoospermia factor b (AZFb) region (encompassing the RBM gene). Two were found to have deletions of both the AZFb and AZFc regions. Eight patients had deletions in the AZFc region (encompassing the DAZ gene). Five had deletions distal to the DAZ gene family. One had multiple, noncontiguous deletions. In 8 patients with testicular histology available, a lack of genotype/phenotype correlation was noted. Of the 11 couples with deletions, 3 thought microdeletion was a serious defect and opted for an artificial insemination of donor or adoption, 5 chose intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and the other 3 decided to undergo treatment with Chinese medicinal herbs. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly deleted region in the Taiwanese population is AZFc. The genes implicated in Taiwanese spermatogenesis defects are the DAZ and RBM gene families. Twenty-seven percent of couples with microdeletions deferred assisted reproductive technologies because of concern about their underlying genetic defects.
OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term results and complications of gonadectomy performed at an early age (prepubertal) or at the traditional age in cats. DESIGN: Cohort study. ANIMALS: 263 cats from animal shelters. PROCEDURE: Cats that underwent gonadectomy were allotted to 2 groups on the basis of estimated age at surgery (traditional age, > or = 24 weeks old; prepubertal, < 24 weeks old). Adoptive owner information was obtained from shelter records, and telephone interviews were conducted with owners to determine physical or behavioral problems observed in the cats after adoption. Follow-up information was obtained from attending veterinarians for cats with complex problems or when owners were uncertain regarding the exact nature of their cat's problem. RESULTS: Compared with traditional-age gonadectomy, prepubertal gonadectomy did not result in an increased incidence of infectious disease, behavioral problems, or problems associated with any body system during a median follow-up period of 37 months. Additionally, the rate of retention in the original adoptive household was the same for cats that underwent prepubertal gonadectomy as those that underwent traditional-age gonadectomy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prepubertal gonadectomy may be performed safely in cats without concern for increased incidence of physical or behavioral problems for at least a 3-year period after gonadectomy.