nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

01.02.2019 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy

verfasst von: C. Scarica, D. Cimadomo, L. Dovere, A. Giancani, M. Stoppa, A. Capalbo, F. M. Ubaldi, L. Rienzi, R. Canipari

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 5/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the association of cumulus cell (CC)-related expression of a selected cluster of key genes (PTGS2, CAMK1D, HAS2, STC1, and EFNB2) with embryo development to blastocyst.

Methods

Exploratory study at a private clinic. Eighteen advanced maternal age patients were enrolled (37.3 ± 4.0 years). Seventy-five cumuli were collected, whose oocytes resulted in either developmental arrest (N = 33) or blastocyst formation (N = 42). The noninvasive CC gene expression was combined with time-lapse morphokinetic parameters and, for blastocysts, with qPCR-based aneuploidy testing on trophectoderm biopsies.

Results

The detection rate was 100% for all transcripts, but STC1 (96%) and CAMK1D (89%). Among amplified assays, CC mean expression levels of CAMK1D, PTGS2, and HAS2 were higher from oocytes that developed to blastocyst. No difference in CC key gene expression was reported between euploid (N = 21) and aneuploid (N = 21) blastocysts. Some timings of early embryo development were faster in embryos developing to blastocyst (time of pronuclei appearance and fading, division to two- and four-cells, first and second cell cycles). However, the generalized linear models outlined increasing CAMK1D expression levels as the strongest parameter associated with oocytes’ developmental potential from both a general (AUC = 0.78 among amplified samples) and an intrapatient perspectives (AUC = 0.9 among patients obtaining ≥ 2 zygotes from the cohort with different developmental outcomes).

Conclusions

CAMK1D level of expression in CCs associated with blastocyst development. If confirmed from larger studies in wider populations of patients, the investigation of CC key gene expression might suit IVF clinics not adopting blastocyst culture. Future investigations should clarify the role of CAMK1D in ovarian physiology and could provide novel insights on how oocytes gain competence during folliculogenesis.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2097–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1973–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem100.CrossRefPubMed

Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, Biggers JD. Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? Hum Reprod. 2009;24(9):2104–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep198.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):244–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029.CrossRefPubMed

Gardner DK. Blastocyst culture: toward single embryo transfers. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2000;3(4):229–37.CrossRef

Gardner DK. The impact of physiological oxygen during culture, and vitrification for cryopreservation, on the outcome of extended culture in human IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;32(2):137–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):412–9 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.021.CrossRefPubMed

Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2643–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det300.CrossRefPubMed

Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der256.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD011320. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub3.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Heffner LJ. Advanced maternal age—how old is too old? N Engl J Med. 2004;351(19):1927–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048087.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(4):280–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/35066065.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656–63 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Capalbo A, Hoffmann ER, Cimadomo D, Maria Ubaldi F, Rienzi L. Human female meiosis revised: new insights into the mechanisms of chromosome segregation and aneuploidies from advanced genomics and time-lapse imaging. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx026.CrossRef

15.

Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):624–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Scarica C, Palagiano A, Canipari R, et al. The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7193075. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7193075.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Pennetta F, Lagalla C, Borini A. Embryo morphokinetic characteristics and euploidy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):185–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000453.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26(5):477–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):699–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci L, et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.012.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Eppig JJ. Oocyte control of ovarian follicular development and function in mammals. Reproduction. 2001;122(6):829–38.CrossRef

24.

Paulini F, Melo EO. The role of oocyte-secreted factors GDF9 and BMP15 in follicular development and oogenesis. Reprod Domest Anim. 2011;46(2):354–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2010.01739.x.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Trombly DJ, Woodruff TK, Mayo KE. Roles for transforming growth factor beta superfamily proteins in early folliculogenesis. Semin Reprod Med. 2009;27(1):14–23. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1108006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Kedem A, Fisch B, Garor R, Ben-Zaken A, Gizunterman T, Felz C, et al. Growth differentiating factor 9 (GDF9) and bone morphogenetic protein 15 both activate development of human primordial follicles in vitro, with seemingly more beneficial effects of GDF9. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(8):E1246–54. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-0410.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Feuerstein P, Cadoret V, Dalbies-Tran R, Guerif F, Bidault R, Royere D. Gene expression in human cumulus cells: one approach to oocyte competence. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3069–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem336.CrossRefPubMed

28.

McKenzie LJ, Pangas SA, Carson SA, Kovanci E, Cisneros P, Buster JE, et al. Human cumulus granulosa cell gene expression: a predictor of fertilization and embryo selection in women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2869–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh535.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Cillo F, Brevini TA, Antonini S, Paffoni A, Ragni G, Gandolfi F. Association between human oocyte developmental competence and expression levels of some cumulus genes. Reproduction. 2007;134(5):645–50. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-07-0182.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Anderson RA, Sciorio R, Kinnell H, Bayne RA, Thong KJ, de Sousa PA, et al. Cumulus gene expression as a predictor of human oocyte fertilisation, embryo development and competence to establish a pregnancy. Reproduction. 2009;138(4):629–37. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-09-0144.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Feuerstein P, Puard V, Chevalier C, Teusan R, Cadoret V, Guerif F, et al. Genomic assessment of human cumulus cell marker genes as predictors of oocyte developmental competence: impact of various experimental factors. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40449. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040449.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Kordus RJ, LaVoie HA. Granulosa cell biomarkers to predict pregnancy in ART: pieces to solve the puzzle. Reproduction. 2017;153(2):R69–83. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-16-0500.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Wathlet S, Adriaenssens T, Segers I, Verheyen G, Janssens R, Coucke W, et al. New candidate genes to predict pregnancy outcome in single embryo transfer cycles when using cumulus cell gene expression. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(2):432–9 e1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Burnik Papler T, Vrtacnik Bokal E, Maver A, Lovrecic L. Specific gene expression differences in cumulus cells as potential biomarkers of pregnancy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(4):426–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.12.011.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Sanchez F, Smitz J. Molecular control of oogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822(12):1896–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2012.05.013.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Wissing ML, Kristensen SG, Andersen CY, Mikkelsen AL, Host T, Borup R, et al. Identification of new ovulation-related genes in humans by comparing the transcriptome of granulosa cells before and after ovulation triggering in the same controlled ovarian stimulation cycle. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu008.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Luo CW, Kawamura K, Klein C, Hsueh AJ. Paracrine regulation of ovarian granulosa cell differentiation by stanniocalcin (STC) 1: mediation through specific STC1 receptors. Mol Endocrinol. 2004;18(8):2085–96. https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2004-0066.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Deol HK, Varghese R, Wagner GF, Dimattia GE. Dynamic regulation of mouse ovarian stanniocalcin expression during gestation and lactation. Endocrinology. 2000;141(9):3412–21. https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.141.9.7658.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Patrizio P, Venturella R, Orlando G, Soscia D, et al. Biochemical pregnancy loss after frozen embryo transfer seems independent of embryo developmental stage and chromosomal status. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(3):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Cerulo G, Greco E. Preincubation of human oocytes may improve fertilization and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(4):1014–9.CrossRef

41.

Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Romano S, Baroni E, Albricci L, Colamaria S, et al. Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate achieved with oocyte vitrification and cleavage stage transfer without embryo selection in a standard infertility program. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(5):1199–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq046.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu033.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(7):901–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.222.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott RT Jr. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):819–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.115.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Gardner DK, Schoolcraft B. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999. p. 377–88.

46.

Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE, Soscia D, Orlando G, Albani E, et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1992–2001. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey291.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332(6163):459–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/332459a0.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, et al. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol. 2002;3(7):RESEARCH0034.CrossRef

49.

Wathlet S, Adriaenssens T, Segers I, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Coucke W, et al. Cumulus cell gene expression predicts better cleavage-stage embryo or blastocyst development and pregnancy for ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):1035–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der036.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C(T) method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101–8.CrossRef

51.

McCall MN, McMurray HR, Land H, Almudevar A. On non-detects in qPCR data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(16):2310–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Adriaenssens T, Wathlet S, Segers I, Verheyen G, De Vos A, Van der Elst J, et al. Cumulus cell gene expression is associated with oocyte developmental quality and influenced by patient and treatment characteristics. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(5):1259–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq049.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Green KA, Franasiak JM, Werner MD, Tao X, Landis JN, Scott RT Jr, et al. Cumulus cell transcriptome profiling is not predictive of live birth after in vitro fertilization: a paired analysis of euploid sibling blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):460–6 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Adriaenssens T, Segers I, Wathlet S, Smitz J. The cumulus cell gene expression profile of oocytes with different nuclear maturity and potential for blastocyst formation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(1):31–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9481-9.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Park MH, Nishimura K, Zanelli CF, Valentini SR. Functional significance of eIF5A and its hypusine modification in eukaryotes. Amino Acids. 2010;38(2):491–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-009-0408-7.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Fujimura K, Choi S, Wyse M, Strnadel J, Wright T, Klemke R. Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A (EIF5A) regulates pancreatic cancer metastasis by modulating RhoA and Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) protein expression levels. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(50):29907–19. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Qin X, Liang Y, Guo Y, Liu X, Zeng W, Wu F, et al. Eukaryotic initiation factor 5A and Ca(2+) /calmodulin-dependent protein kinase 1D modulate trophoblast cell function. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2018;80(1):e12845. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.12845.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Haney S, Zhao J, Tiwari S, Eng K, Guey LT, Tien E. RNAi screening in primary human hepatocytes of genes implicated in genome-wide association studies for roles in type 2 diabetes identifies roles for CAMK1D and CDKAL1, among others, in hepatic glucose regulation. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e64946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064946.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Bergamaschi A, Kim YH, Kwei KA, La Choi Y, Bocanegra M, Langerod A, et al. CAMK1D amplification implicated in epithelial-mesenchymal transition in basal-like breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2008;2(4):327–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2008.09.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Eppig JJ. Prostaglandin E2 stimulates cumulus expansion and hyaluronic acid synthesis by cumuli oophori isolated from mice. Biol Reprod. 1981;25(1):191–5.CrossRef

61.

Hizaki H, Segi E, Sugimoto Y, Hirose M, Saji T, Ushikubi F, et al. Abortive expansion of the cumulus and impaired fertility in mice lacking the prostaglandin E receptor subtype EP(2). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(18):10501–6.CrossRef

62.

Lim H, Paria BC, Das SK, Dinchuk JE, Langenbach R, Trzaskos JM, et al. Multiple female reproductive failures in cyclooxygenase 2-deficient mice. Cell. 1997;91(2):197–208.CrossRef

63.

Davis BJ, Lennard DE, Lee CA, Tiano HF, Morham SG, Wetsel WC, et al. Anovulation in cyclooxygenase-2-deficient mice is restored by prostaglandin E2 and interleukin-1beta. Endocrinology. 1999;140(6):2685–95. https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.140.6.6715.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Takahashi T, Morrow JD, Wang H, Dey SK. Cyclooxygenase-2-derived prostaglandin E(2) directs oocyte maturation by differentially influencing multiple signaling pathways. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(48):37117–29. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M608202200.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Fulop C, Salustri A, Hascall VC. Coding sequence of a hyaluronan synthase homologue expressed during expansion of the mouse cumulus-oocyte complex. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1997;337(2):261–6. https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.1996.9793.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Salustri A, Yanagishita M, Hascall VC. Synthesis and accumulation of hyaluronic acid and proteoglycans in the mouse cumulus cell-oocyte complex during follicle-stimulating hormone-induced mucification. J Biol Chem. 1989;264(23):13840–7.PubMed

67.

Salustri A, Ulisse S, Yanagishita M, Hascall VC. Hyaluronic acid synthesis by mural granulosa cells and cumulus cells in vitro is selectively stimulated by a factor produced by oocytes and by transforming growth factor-beta. J Biol Chem. 1990;265(32):19517–23.PubMed

68.

Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Fragouli E, Wells D, Iager AE, Kayisli UA, Patrizio P. Alteration of gene expression in human cumulus cells as a potential indicator of oocyte aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(8):2559–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des170.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Fragouli E, Lalioti MD, Wells D. The transcriptome of follicular cells: biological insights and clinical implications for the treatment of infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt044.CrossRefPubMed

71.

McCoy RC, Demko Z, Ryan A, Banjevic M, Hill M, Sigurjonsson S, et al. Common variants spanning PLK4 are associated with mitotic-origin aneuploidy in human embryos. Science. 2015;348(6231):235–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa3337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

McCoy RC, Demko ZP, Ryan A, Banjevic M, Hill M, Sigurjonsson S, et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet. 2015;11(10):e1005601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

McCoy RC, Newnham LJ, Ottolini CS, Hoffmann ER, Chatzimeletiou K, Cornejo OE, et al. Tripolar chromosome segregation drives the association between maternal genotype at variants spanning PLK4 and aneuploidy in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27(14):2573–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddy147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, Garcia Velasco JA, Remohi J, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):276–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu331.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Betts DH, Madan P. Permanent embryo arrest: molecular and cellular concepts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(8):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gan035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Hammond ER, Stewart B, Peek JC, Shelling AN, Cree LM. Assessing embryo quality by combining non-invasive markers: early time-lapse parameters reflect gene expression in associated cumulus cells. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(8):1850–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev121.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy
verfasst von: C. Scarica
D. Cimadomo
L. Dovere
A. Giancani
M. Stoppa
A. Capalbo
F. M. Ubaldi
L. Rienzi
R. Canipari
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01410-3

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy