ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled, two-centre trial. Lancet, 391 (10119), 441–450.

17. Farquhar, C. & Marjoribanks, J. (2018). Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, CD010537.

18. Geber, S. (2002). Laboratory techniques for human embryos. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 5 (2), 211–218.

19. Edwards, R. G. et al. (1980). Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 87 (9), 737–756.

20. Yovich, J. L. & Craft, I. L. (2018). Foundling pioneers of IVF: independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reproductive Biology, 18, 317–323.

21. Fauser, B. (2018). Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 38 (2), 133–137.

22. Alper, M. M. & Fauser, B. C. (2017). Ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF: is more better than less? Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 34 (4), 345–353.

23. Youssef, M. et al. (2014). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in agonist-assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD008046.

24. Nagy, Z. P. et al. (2020). Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertility and Sterility, 113 (2), 241–247.

25. Roque, M. et al. (2017). Freeze-all cycle in reproductive medicine: current perspectives. JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 21 (1), 49–53.

26. Iussig, B. et al. (2019). A brief history of oocyte cryopreservation: arguments and facts. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 98 (5), 550–558.

27. Son, W-Y. & Tan, S. L. (2009). Comparison between slow freezing and vitrification for human embryos. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 6 (1), 1–7.

28. Kuwayama, M. et al. (2005). Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 11 (5), 608–614.

29. Levi-Setti, P. E. et al. (2014). Human oocyte cryopreservation with slow freezing versus vitrification. Results from the National Italian Registry data, 2007–2011. Fertility and Sterility, 102 (1), 90–95.

30. Сhen, M. & Heilbronn, L. K. (2017). The health outcomes of human offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, 8 (4), 388–402.

31. Bankowski, B. J. et al. (2005). The social implications of embryo cryopreservation. Fertility and Sterility, 84 (4), 823–832.

32. Inhorn, M. C. et al. (2018). Ten pathways to elective egg freezing: a binational analysis. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 35 (11), 2003–2011.

33. Alteri, A. et al. (2018). Elective egg freezing without medical indications. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 98, 647–652.

34. Mesen, T. B. et al. (2015). Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertility and Sterility, 103 (6), 1551–1556.

35. Doyle, J. O. et al. (2016). Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertility and sterility, 105 (2), 459–466.

36. Goldman, R. H. et al. (2017). Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Human Reproduction, 32 (4), 853–859.

Глава 3. Вера в генетику и границы ее применимости

1. Segal, N. L. (2017). Twins reared together and apart: the science behind the fascination. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 161 (1), 1–17.

2. Grimes, W. (2015). Jack Yufe, a Jew whose twin was a Nazi, dies at 82. The New York Times, Nov. 13. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/us/jack-yufe-a-jew-whose-twin-was-a-nazi-dies-at-82.html

3. Bouchard, J. T. et al. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250 (4978), 223–228.

4. Van Dongen, J. et al. (2012). The continuing value of twin studies in the omics era. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13 (9), 640–653.

5. Tenesa, A. & Haley, C. S. (2013). The heritability of human disease: estimation, uses and abuses. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14 (2), 139–149.

6. Derks, E. M. et al. (2006). A test of the equal environment assumption in multivariate twin studies. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9 (3), 403–411.

7. Gabbett, M. T. et al. (2019). Molecular support for heterogonesis resulting in sesquizygotic twinning. The New England Journal of Medicine, 380, 842–829.

8. Polderman, T. J. C. et al. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 702–709.

9. Sanders, A. R. et al. (2017). Genome-wide association study of male sexual orientation. Scientific reports, 7, 16950.

10. Hatemi, P. K. et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavior Genetics, 44 (3), 282–294.

11. Young, A. I. (2019). Solving the missing heritability problem. PLOS Genetics, 15 (6), e1008222.

12. Purves, D. et al. (2012). Neuroscience. 5th edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

13. Negi, S. K. & Guda, C. (2017). Global gene expression profiling of healthy human brain and its application in studying neurological disorders. Scientific Reports, 7 (1), 897.

14. Wen, L. et al. (2016). Contribution of Variants in CHRNA5/A3/B4 Gene Cluster on Chromosome 15 to Tobacco Smoking: From Genetic Association to Mechanism. Molecular Neurobiology, 53 (1), 472–484.

15. Byrd, A. L. & Manuck, S. B. (2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment and antisocial behavior: meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 75 (1), 9–17.

16. Plomin, R. et al. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11 (1), 3–23.

17. Casonato, M. & Habersaat, S. (2015). Parenting without being genetically connected. Enfance, 3, 289–306.

18. Kirkman-Brown, J. C. & Martins, M. V. (2020). ‘Genes versus children’: if the goal is parenthood, are we using the optimal approach? Human Reproduction, 35 (1), 5–11.

19. Gezinski, L. B. et al. (2016). Exploring motivations, awareness of side effects, and attitudes among potential egg donors. Health & Social Work, 41 (2), 75–83.

20. Golombok, S. (2021). Love and truth: what really matters for children born through third-party assisted reproduction. Child Development Perspectives, 15 (2), 103–109.

21. Malm, K. & Welti, K. (2010). Exploring Motivations to Adopt. Adoption Quarterly, 13, 185–208.

22. Ijzendoorn, M. H. & Juffer, F. (2005). Adoption is a successful natural intervention enhancing adopted children’s IQ and school performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (6), 326–330.

23. Cheesman, R. et al. (2020). Comparison of adopted and nonadopted individuals reveals gene-environment interplay for education in the UK Biobank. Psychological Science, 31 (5), 582–591.

24. Kendler, K. S. et al. (2016). The rearing