Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2022

01-12-2022 | Research article

The relationships between women’s reproductive factors: a Mendelian randomisation analysis

Authors: Claire Prince, Gemma C. Sharp, Laura D. Howe, Abigail Fraser, Rebecca C. Richmond

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Women’s reproductive factors include their age at menarche and menopause, the age at which they start and stop having children and the number of children they have. Studies that have linked these factors with disease risk have largely investigated individual reproductive factors and have not considered the genetic correlation and total interplay that may occur between them. This study aimed to investigate the nature of the relationships between eight female reproductive factors.

Methods

We used data from the UK Biobank and genetic consortia with data available for the following reproductive factors: age at menarche, age at menopause, age at first birth, age at last birth, number of births, being parous, age first had sexual intercourse and lifetime number of sexual partners. Linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC) was performed to investigate the genetic correlation between reproductive factors. We then applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) methods to estimate the causal relationships between these factors. Sensitivity analyses were used to investigate directionality of the effects, test for evidence of pleiotropy and account for sample overlap.

Results

LDSC indicated that most reproductive factors are genetically correlated (rg range: |0.06–0.94|), though there was little evidence for genetic correlations between lifetime number of sexual partners and age at last birth, number of births and ever being parous (rg < 0.01). MR revealed potential causal relationships between many reproductive factors, including later age at menarche (1 SD increase) leading to a later age at first sexual intercourse (beta (B) = 0.09 SD, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.06,0.11), age at first birth (B = 0.07 SD, CI = 0.04,0.10), age at last birth (B = 0.06 SD, CI = 0.04,0.09) and age at menopause (B = 0.06 SD, CI = 0.03,0.10). Later age at first birth was found to lead to a later age at menopause (B = 0.21 SD, CI = 0.13,0.29), age at last birth (B = 0.72 SD, CI = 0.67, 0.77) and a lower number of births (B = −0.38 SD, CI = −0.44, −0.32).

Conclusion

This study presents evidence that women’s reproductive factors are genetically correlated and causally related. Future studies examining the health sequelae of reproductive factors should consider a woman’s entire reproductive history, including the causal interplay between reproductive factors.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Rich-Edwards JW. Reproductive health as a sentinel of chronic disease in women. Womens Health (Lond). 2009;5(2):101–5.
2.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast C. Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(11):1141–51.
3.
Ewertz M, Duffy SW, Adami HO, Kvale G, Lund E, Meirik O, et al. Age at first birth, parity and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 8 studies from the Nordic countries. Int J Cancer. 1990;46(4):597–603.PubMed
4.
Tang R, Fraser A, Magnus MC. Female reproductive history in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung function in UK biobank: a prospective population-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e030318.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Okoth K, Chandan JS, Marshall T, Thangaratinam S, Thomas GN, Nirantharakumar K, et al. Association between the reproductive health of young women and cardiovascular disease in later life: umbrella review. BMJ. 2020;371:m3502.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Parikh NI, Jeppson RP, Berger JS, Eaton CB, Kroenke CH, LeBlanc ES, et al. Reproductive risk factors and coronary heart disease in the Women’s health initiative observational study. Circulation. 2016;133(22):2149–58.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Cao M, Cui B. Negative Effects of Age at Menarche on Risk of Cardiometabolic Diseases in Adulthood: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;105(2):515-522.
8.
Yin X, Zhu Z, Hosgood HD, Lan Q, Seow WJ. Reproductive factors and lung cancer risk: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1458.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Noh JH, Koo H. Older menarche age and short reproductive period linked to chronic kidney disease risk. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(18):e15511.
10.
Kang SC, Jhee JH, Joo YS, Lee SM, Nam KH, Yun HR, et al. Association of reproductive lifespan duration and chronic kidney disease in postmenopausal women. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(12):2621–32.PubMed
11.
Hardy R, Kuh D. Reproductive characteristics and the age at inception of the perimenopause in a British National Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(7):612–20.PubMed
12.
Henderson KD, Bernstein L, Henderson B, Kolonel L, Pike MC. Predictors of the timing of natural menopause in the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(11):1287–94.PubMed
13.
Brand JS, Onland-Moret NC, Eijkemans MJ, Tjonneland A, Roswall N, Overvad K, et al. Diabetes and onset of natural menopause: results from the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(6):1491–8.PubMed
14.
Li J, Eriksson M, Czene K, Hall P, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA. Common diseases as determinants of menopausal age. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(12):2856–64.PubMed
15.
Mishra GD, Pandeya N, Dobson AJ, Chung HF, Anderson D, Kuh D, et al. Early menarche, nulliparity and the risk for premature and early natural menopause. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(3):679–86.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Ruth KS, Perry JR, Henley WE, Melzer D, Weedon MN, Murray A. Events in early life are associated with female reproductive ageing: a UK biobank study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24710.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
van Keep PA, Brand PC, Lehert P. Factors affecting the age at menopause. J Biosoc Sci Suppl. 1979;6:37–55.
18.
Boulet MJ, Oddens BJ, Lehert P, Vemer HM, Visser A. Climacteric and menopause in seven south-east Asian countries. Maturitas. 1994;19(3):157–76.PubMed
19.
van Noord PA, Dubas JS, Dorland M, Boersma H, te Velde E. Age at natural menopause in a population-based screening cohort: the role of menarche, fecundity, and lifestyle factors. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(1):95–102.PubMed
20.
Kato I, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, Koenig KL, Shore R, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A. Prospective study of factors influencing the onset of natural menopause. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1271–6.PubMed
21.
Nagel G, Altenburg HP, Nieters A, Boffetta P, Linseisen J. Reproductive and dietary determinants of the age at menopause in EPIC-Heidelberg. Maturitas. 2005;52(3-4):337–47.PubMed
22.
Dratva J, Gomez Real F, Schindler C, Ackermann-Liebrich U, Gerbase MW, Probst-Hensch NM, et al. Is age at menopause increasing across Europe? Results on age at menopause and determinants from two population-based studies. Menopause. 2009;16(2):385–94.PubMed
23.
Rizvanovic M, Balic D, Begic Z, Babovic A, Bogadanovic G, Kameric L. Parity and menarche as risk factors of time of menopause occurrence. Mediev Archaeol. 2013;67(5):336–8.
24.
Zsakai A, Mascie-Taylor N, Bodzsar EB. Relationship between some indicators of reproductive history, body fatness and the menopausal transition in Hungarian women. J Physiol Anthropol. 2015;34:35.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zhang Q, Wang YY, Zhang Y, Zhang HG, Yang Y, He Y, et al. The influence of age at menarche, menstrual cycle length and bleeding duration on time to pregnancy: a large prospective cohort study among rural Chinese women. BJOG. 2017;124(11):1654–62.PubMed
26.
Sandler DP, Wilcox AJ, Horney LF. Age at menarche and subsequent reproductive events. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119(5):765–74.PubMed
27.
Marino JL, Skinner SR, Doherty DA, Rosenthal SL, Cooper Robbins SC, Cannon J, et al. Age at menarche and age at first sexual intercourse: a prospective cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):1028–36.PubMed
28.
Smith GD, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22.PubMed
29.
Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23(R1):R89–98.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Davies NM, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018;362:k601.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Perry JR, Day F, Elks CE, Sulem P, Thompson DJ, Ferreira T, et al. Parent-of-origin-specific allelic associations among 106 genomic loci for age at menarche. Nature. 2014;514(7520):92–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Day FR, Ruth KS, Thompson DJ, Lunetta KL, Pervjakova N, Chasman DI, et al. Large-scale genomic analyses link reproductive aging to hypothalamic signaling, breast cancer susceptibility and BRCA1-mediated DNA repair. Nat Genet. 2015;47(11):1294–303.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Mathieson I, Day FR, Barban N, Tropf FC, Brazel DM, Consortium e, Consortium B, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies genetic effects on reproductive success and ongoing natural selection at the FADS locus. bioRxiv. 2020.05.19.104455.
34.
Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001779.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, Wade KH, Haberland V, Baird D, Laurin C, Burgess S, Bowden J, Langdon R, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife. 2018;7:e34408.
36.
37.
Loh PR, Tucker G, Bulik-Sullivan BK, Vilhjalmsson BJ, Finucane HK, Salem RM, et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat Genet. 2015;47(3):284–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Bulik-Sullivan BK, Loh PR, Finucane HK, Ripke S, Yang J, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics C, et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2015;47(3):291–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Bulik-Sullivan B, Finucane HK, Anttila V, Gusev A, Day FR, Loh PR, et al. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat Genet. 2015;47(11):1236–41.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
International HapMap C, Altshuler DM, Gibbs RA, Peltonen L, Altshuler DM, Gibbs RA, et al. Integrating common and rare genetic variation in diverse human populations. Nature. 2010;467(7311):52–8.
41.
Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37(7):658–65.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Burgess S, Davies NM, Thompson SG. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(7):597–608.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Minelli C, Del Greco M. F, van der Plaat DA, Bowden J, Sheehan NA, Thompson J. The use of two-sample methods for Mendelian randomization analyses on single large datasets. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(5):1651-1659.
44.
Morrison J, Knoblauch N, Marcus JH, Stephens M, He X. Publisher correction: Mendelian randomization accounting for correlated and uncorrelated pleiotropic effects using genome-wide summary statistics. Nat Genet. 2020;52(7):750.PubMed
45.
Greco MF, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med. 2015;34(21):2926–40.
46.
Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Zhao Q, Lawlor DA, Sheehan NA, et al. Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):728–42.PubMed
47.
Hartwig FP, Davey Smith G, Bowden J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(6):1985–98.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(4):304–14.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):512–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Lawlor DA, Wade K, Borges MC, Palmer TM, Hartwig FP, Hemani G: A Mendelian Randomization dictionary: useful definitions and descriptions for undertaking, understanding and interpreting Mendelian Randomization studies [Internet]. OSF Preprints 2019.
51.
Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1961–74.PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, Do R. Publisher correction: detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet. 2018;50(8):1196.PubMed
53.
Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):377–89.PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Hemani G, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(11):e1007081.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Barban N, Jansen R, de Vlaming R, Vaez A, Mandemakers JJ, Tropf FC, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies 12 loci influencing human reproductive behavior. Nat Genet. 2016;48(12):1462–72.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
57.
58.
Day FR, Ruth KS, Thompson DJ, Lunetta KL, Pervjakova N, Chasman DI, Stolk L, Finucane HK, Sulem P, Bulik-Sullivan B: Large-scale genomic analyses link reproductive aging to hypothalamic signaling, breast cancer susceptibility and BRCA1-mediated DNA repair. In. https://​www.​reprogen.​org/​data_​download.​html:​ ReproGen Consortium; 2015.
59.
Taylor AE, Davies NM, Ware JJ, VanderWeele T, Smith GD, Munafo MR. Mendelian randomization in health research: using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates. Econ Hum Biol. 2014;13:99–106.PubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Zheng J, Baird D, Borges MC, Bowden J, Hemani G, Haycock P, et al. Recent developments in Mendelian randomization studies. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2017;4(4):330–45.PubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Mounier N, Kutalik Z. Correction for sample overlap, winner’s curse and weak instrument bias in two-sample Mendelian Randomization. bioRxiv. 2021.03.26.437168.
62.
Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27(8):1133–63.PubMed
63.
Burgess S, Thompson DJ, Rees JMB, Day FR, Perry JR, Ong KK. Dissecting causal pathways using Mendelian randomization with summarized genetic data: application to age at menarche and risk of breast cancer. Genetics. 2017;207(2):481–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Ni G, Amare AT, Zhou X, Mills N, Gratten J, Lee SH. The genetic relationship between female reproductive traits and six psychiatric disorders. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):12041.PubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Day FR, Helgason H, Chasman DI, Rose LM, Loh PR, Scott RA, et al. Physical and neurobehavioral determinants of reproductive onset and success. Nat Genet. 2016;48(6):617–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Sanderson E, Spiller W, Bowden J. Testing and correcting for weak and pleiotropic instruments in two-sample multivariable Mendelian randomization. Stat Med. 2021;40(25):5434–52.PubMed
67.
Magnus MC, Guyatt AL, Lawn RB, Wyss AB, Trajanoska K, Kupers LK, et al. Identifying potential causal effects of age at menarche: a Mendelian randomization phenome-wide association study. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):71.PubMedPubMedCentral
68.
Ding X, Tang R, Zhu J, He M, Huang H, Lin Z, et al. An appraisal of the role of previously reported risk factors in the age at menopause using Mendelian randomization. Front Genet. 2020;11:507.PubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Lawn RB, Sallis HM, Wootton RE, Taylor AE, Demange P, Fraser A, et al. The effects of age at menarche and first sexual intercourse on reproductive and behavioural outcomes: a Mendelian randomization study. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234488.PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Ruth KS, Day FR, Hussain J, Martinez-Marchal A, Aiken CE, Azad A, et al. Genetic insights into biological mechanisms governing human ovarian ageing. Nature. 2021;596(7872):393–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
71.
72.
Day FR, Thompson DJ, Helgason H, Chasman DI, Finucane H, Sulem P, et al. Genomic analyses identify hundreds of variants associated with age at menarche and support a role for puberty timing in cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2017;49(6):834–41.PubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Mills MC, Tropf FC, Brazel DM, van Zuydam N, Vaez A, Agbessi M, Ahsan H, Alves I, Andiappan AK, Arindrarto W, et al. Identification of 371 genetic variants for age at first sex and birth linked to externalising behaviour. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(12):1717-1730.
74.
Fenton KA, Hughes G. Sexual behaviour in Britain: why sexually transmitted infections are common. Clin Med (Lond). 2003;3(3):199–202.
75.
Ellis BJ, Bjorklund DF. Beyond mental health: an evolutionary analysis of development under risky and supportive environmental conditions: an introduction to the special section. Dev Psychol. 2012;48(3):591–7.PubMed
76.
Ellis BJ. Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: an integrated life history approach. Psychol Bull. 2004;130(6):920–58.PubMed
77.
Carter AR, Sanderson E, Hammerton G, Richmond RC, Davey Smith G, Heron J, et al. Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(5):465–78.PubMedPubMedCentral
78.
Falci CD, Mortimer JT, Noel H. Parental timing and depressive symptoms in early adulthood. Adv Life Course Res. 2010;15(1):1–10.PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Aitken Z, Hewitt B, Keogh L, LaMontagne AD, Bentley R, Kavanagh AM. Young maternal age at first birth and mental health later in life: does the association vary by birth cohort? Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:9–17.PubMed
80.
Mendle J, Ryan RM, McKone KMP. Age at menarche, depression, and antisocial behavior in adulthood. Pediatrics. 2018;141(1):e20171703.
81.
Copeland W, Shanahan L, Miller S, Costello EJ, Angold A, Maughan B. Outcomes of early pubertal timing in young women: a prospective population-based study. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(10):1218–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Peters SA, Woodward M. Women’s reproductive factors and incident cardiovascular disease in the UK biobank. Heart. 2018;104(13):1069–75.PubMed
83.
Burgess S, Thompson SG. Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(4):251–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Gormley M, Dudding T, Kachuri L, Burrows K, Chong AHW, Martin RM, Thomas SJ, Tyrrell J, Ness AR, Brennan P, et al. Investigating the effect of sexual behaviour on oropharyngeal cancer risk: a methodological assessment of Mendelian randomization. medRxiv. 2021.06.21.21259261.
85.
Forman MR, Mangini LD, Thelus-Jean R, Hayward MD. Life-course origins of the ages at menarche and menopause. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2013;4:1–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
86.
87.
Cooper R, Blell M, Hardy R, Black S, Pollard TM, Wadsworth ME, et al. Validity of age at menarche self-reported in adulthood. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(11):993–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
88.
Graham CA, Catania JA, Brand R, Duong T, Canchola JA. Recalling sexual behavior: a methodological analysis of memory recall bias via interview using the diary as the gold standard. J Sex Res. 2003;40(4):325–32.PubMed
Metadata
Title
The relationships between women’s reproductive factors: a Mendelian randomisation analysis
Authors
Claire Prince
Gemma C. Sharp
Laura D. Howe
Abigail Fraser
Rebecca C. Richmond
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02293-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Medicine 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research article

Depression and fatigue in active IBD from a microbiome perspective—a Bayesian approach to faecal metagenomics

Research article

Comprehensive and integrative analyses identify TYW5 as a schizophrenia risk gene

Research article

Dairy consumption and risks of total and site-specific cancers in Chinese adults: an 11-year prospective study of 0.5 million people

Editorial

From screening to treatment: the new landscape of diabetic kidney disease

Research article

Neutrophil degranulation and severely impaired extracellular trap formation at the basis of susceptibility to infections of hemodialysis patients

Research article

Temporal trajectories of important diseases in the life course and premature mortality in the UK Biobank