Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Because analytic technologies improve, increasing amounts of data on methylation differences between assisted reproductive technology (ART) and unassisted conceptions are available. However, various studies use different tissue types and different populations in their analyses, making data comparison and integration difficult. OBJECTIVE: To compare and integrate data on genome-wide analyses of methylation differences due to ART, allowing exposure of overarching themes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: All studies undertaking genome-wide analysis of human methylation differences due to ART or infertility in any tissue type across the lifespan were assessed for inclusion. FINDINGS: Seventeen studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. One study assessed trophectoderm biopsies, 2 first-trimester placenta, 1 first-trimester fetal tissue, 2 term placenta, 7 cord blood, 3 newborn dried blood spots, 1 childhood buccal smears, 1 childhood peripheral blood, and 2 adult peripheral blood. Eleven studies compared tissues from in vitro fertilization (IVF) conceptions with those of unassisted conceptions, 4 compared intracytoplasmic sperm injection with unassisted conceptions, 4 compared non-IVF fertility treatment (NIFT) with unassisted conceptions, 4 compared NIFT with IVF, and 5 compared an infertile population (conceiving via various methods) with an unassisted presumably fertile population. In studies assessing placental tissue, 1 gene with potential methylation changes due to IVF when compared with unassisted conceptions was identified by 2 studies. In blood, 11 potential genes with methylation changes due to IVF compared with unassisted conceptions were identified by 2 studies, 1 of which was identified by 3 studies. Three potentially affected genes were identified by 2 studies involving blood between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and unassisted populations. There were no overlapping genes identified in any tissue type between NIFT and unassisted populations, between NIFT and IVF, or the infertility combined population when compared with the unassisted fertile population. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing studies is challenging due to differing variables between analyses. However, even in similar tissue types and populations, overlapping methylation changes are limited, suggesting that differences due to ART are minimal. RELEVANCE: Information from this systematic review is significant for providers and patients who provide and use ART to understand methylation risks that may be associated with the technology.