Research sweep · 25 July 2026

Genetic variation in estrogen, progesterone and testosterone

How individual genetic differences affect sex-hormone metabolism and response, in women and in female laboratory animals. Seven parallel research threads run against PubMed, scite and Consensus. 73 sources banked, every DOI CrossRef-verified and screened for retractions.

The finding: the measurement problems are bigger than the genetics, and the route of administration is bigger than both. This held across all seven threads independently. Almost no genotype test is justified today. But two measurement gaps are real, quantified and fixable this week, and the single variable that most changes how much testosterone reaches a woman's receptors is the route of her estrogen.

What is actionable now

1. Oral estrogen works against testosterone

In a randomized crossover, oral conjugated estrogen raised SHBG by 132% and cut free testosterone by 32.7%. Transdermal estradiol moved SHBG 12.0% and free testosterone by 1.0% (Shifren 2007). The SHBG split was confirmed in 727 randomized women (Harman 2014).

−32.7%

Free testosterone on oral estrogen. A woman taking testosterone alongside oral estrogen can hold a steady or rising total testosterone while her free testosterone falls by a third. Nothing in seven threads of genetics comes close to that effect size.

One honest qualifier: a small three-arm study (n = 15 per arm) found SHBG rising in all groups including transdermal (Nii 2016). "Transdermal has a far smaller effect" is defensible. "Transdermal has zero effect" is not.

2. The androgens nobody measures

Adrenal 11-oxygenated androgens (11-ketotestosterone and relatives) are quantitatively major in women, age-stable, and invisible to standard panels. Not measured badly. Never measured.

The clinical proof: women with Cushing's disease and obvious androgen excess had testosterone, androstenedione and DHEA-S comparable to healthy controls while their 11-oxygenated androgens were markedly elevated (Nowotny 2022). "Your testosterone is normal" was true and irrelevant.

The caveat that must travel with this claim. The popular shorthand that 11-KT is "equipotent to testosterone" is contested. Direct bioassays in two host-cell systems found 11-keto androgens genuinely active but at significantly lower molar potency than testosterone (Handelsman 2022). The honest argument is about concentration, not potency.

3. Assay quality outranks every gene here

Direct immunoassay read serum testosterone more than 100% higher than mass spectrometry in the same women (Handelsman 2016). The Endocrine Society concluded lab proficiency was being judged by agreement between labs rather than accuracy (Rosner 2007). And calculated free testosterone rests on binding models its own reviewers call faulty (Keevil 2019). Insist on mass spectrometry. Measure SHBG rather than genotyping it.

4. Route also defuses the one real gene-drug interaction

GroupOdds ratio for venous thrombosis
No mutation, no estrogen1.0 (reference)
Factor V Leiden, no estrogen4.1 (2.3 to 7.4)
Factor V Leiden + oral estrogen25.0 (6.9 to 95.0)
Factor V Leiden + transdermal4.4 (2.0 to 9.9)

Read the last two rows together (Straczek 2005). Transdermal adds essentially nothing on top of the mutation itself. In absolute terms, because relative risk misleads here: WHI found 3.5 events per 1,000 woman-years on oral hormone therapy versus 1.7 on placebo, roughly 1.8 extra events per 1,000 women per year (Cushman 2004).

Only Factor V Leiden modified the risk. Prothrombin G20210A, MTHFR, factor XIII and PAI-1 were all null, so a routine thrombophilia panel is not supported. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group went further and withdrew its Factor V Leiden recommendations entirely in 2023, citing insufficient consistency about what the advice should be.

What failed, and should not be repeated

The androgen receptor, and why women are the hard case

Longer CAG repeats lower receptor activity (Chamberlain 1994). But the gene is X-linked. Men have one copy. Women have two, one randomly silenced per cell, making every woman a mosaic of short-receptor and long-receptor cells. The meaningful measure is the X-weighted mean, and most published studies never computed it.

Worse for a menopause audience, skewing increases with age: severe skewing in 7% of women under 25 versus 16% over 60, with agreement between blood, cheek and urinary cells falling markedly (Sharp 2000). Sixteen percent of women in their 70s and 80s newly developed skewing across a single decade (Mengel-From 2021). A blood-based receptor genotype in an older woman is partly measuring aging blood.

The largest female study (n = 529, validated instruments, properly X-weighted) found longer repeats went with better sexual function and found nothing at all for desire (Wåhlin-Jacobsen 2018), the opposite of what the simple model predicts.

APOE4 and hormone therapy

No randomized trial has ever been designed to test this. Every APOE4 result in the literature is a secondary, covariate or post hoc analysis inside a trial powered for something else. KEEPS-Cog pre-specified APOE4 as a moderator and found nothing (Gleason 2015). WHIMS, the trial that produced the harm signal, never published an APOE4-by-treatment interaction on dementia despite genotyping thousands of women. That hole has stood for 22 years.

The most-cited hopeful finding has been overturned by its own trial. A KEEPS pilot reported transdermal estradiol lowered amyloid specifically in APOE4 carriers, odds ratio 0.04, based on 10 treated versus 5 placebo carriers (Kantarci 2016). The long-term follow-up, n = 266, found no amyloid or MRI effect and states plainly that APOE ε4 status did not modify the findings (Kantarci 2026).

Two corrections to widely repeated claims. First, "APOE4 is worse for women" is narrower than usually stated: in ~58,000 people, ε3/ε4 odds were essentially identical in men and women across ages 55 to 85, with the female excess appearing only at ages 65 to 75, and explicitly "no significant differences between men and women with ε4/ε4" (Neu 2017). Second, the timing hypothesis failed its own randomized test: verbal memory difference −0.06 SD, timing interaction p = 0.88 (Henderson 2016). The defensible reading is not "early is protective" but "early is neutral, late is harmful."

For ε4/ε4 specifically, nobody knows. Not one trial reports a homozygote subgroup count. KEEPS genotyped 568 women at 14.4% ε4 frequency, which predicts roughly 12 homozygotes across three arms, about four per arm. No cognitive endpoint is estimable from that. And testosterone crossed with APOE4 in women has zero studies: a 2025 systematic review screened 5,914 records covering 1,016,055 participants and states outright that no included study examined testosterone (Melville 2025).

Why the female animal data may not transfer

Gaps, recorded so nothing gets overstated

No primary source found for the estrous-versus-menstrual-cycle translational comparison. The commonly cited aromatase-knockout adiposity phenotype was not retrieved and should not be asserted. Cyp1b1-null established carcinogen activation, not the estradiol 4-hydroxylation phenotype the estrogen-genotoxicity story needs. The Sult1e1-null published phenotype is male. No support was found for the widely repeated COMT-estrogen-mood link in women. SRD5A2 A49T has no female phenotype data, so claims tying 5-alpha reductase variants to female-pattern hair loss are unsupported. And no GWAS of the 11-oxygenated androgen pool exists in either sex.

Seven research threads run 25 July 2026 against PubMed, scite and Consensus. Every DOI was returned by a tool call, not recalled, and screened against scite's editorial-notice index. 73 sources banked to the central ResearchLibrary, all CrossRef-verified, stamped status: index so none is cited as full text until the paper itself is fetched. Three retracted papers in this literature were identified and recorded so they are never cited. Nothing here is medical advice: it is a reading of the evidence, and hormone decisions belong with a clinician who knows the patient.