Back to all available

Peri-implantation sexual abstinence and Placental angiogenesis and redox status: An exploratory randomized preconception trial

clinical-trials
gynecology-and-obstetrics
immunology
womens-health

Abstract

Background: The peri-implantation period is a critical window shaping placental development. Seminal plasma contains bioactive factors that influence immune and redox pathways, but whether peri-implantation sexual behaviour affects placental morphology and oxidative status in humans remains uncertain.

Methods: In a preconception, randomized trial at Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, couples were allocated to 14-day peri-implantation sexual abstinence or no restriction. Ovulation was confirmed by urinary LH, and adherence was diary-verified. Of 94 randomized couples, 33 pregnancies reached delivery and contributed placentas (abstinence = 9; non-abstinence = 24). Because analyses were limited to delivered pregnancies, findings describe associations rather than unbiased causal effects of allocation. Term placentas were assessed for villous microvessel density (CD31) using QuPath and for oxidative-stress biomarkers (MDA, SOD, CAT, T-AOC). Sonographers and pathologists were blinded.

Results: CD31 microvessel density was higher in the abstinence group (103.9 ± 45.9 vs 43.2 ± 38.2 vessels/HPF; p = 0.0136; Hedges’ g ≈ 1.47). MDA levels were lower (6.54 ± 2.37 vs 16.65 ± 4.98 nmol/mg; p < 0.001), and antioxidant indices (SOD, CAT, T-AOC) were higher (all p ≤ 0.004). CD31 correlated inversely with MDA and positively with SOD and CAT (p < 0.05). Uterine artery Dopplers did not differ between groups.

Conclusion: Among pregnancies that reached delivery, peri-implantation abstinence was associated with lower placental oxidative stress and greater villous microvascular density at term. Findings remain exploratory, given that analyses are limited to delivered pregnancies.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].