Y Zhang1, Y Cui, Z Zhou, J Sha, Y Li, J Liu. 1. Center of Clinical Reproductive Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers are more and more concerning the safety of fetus or offspring derived from assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. As the placenta is a critical organ that sustains and protects the fetus, we hypothesize that altered global gene expression of the placenta subjected to ART manipulation may reflect changes associated with ART procedures and subsequently causal related to offspring health. METHODS: Three term placenta samples were obtained from patients undergone in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer due to oviductal factors only. Other three control placentae were from those underwent normal pregnancy. A GeneChip Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 Array was utilized to analyze the genes. Using qRT-PCR we certified microarray data from 10 dysregulated genes. Five genes were localized precisely in the placenta as per immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Twenty-six differentially expressed genes were identified in the ART-treated placentae: 17 up-regulated; 9 down-regulated. Eighteen of these were classified into six groups according to critical placental function: immune response; transmembrane transport; metabolism; oxidative stress; cell differentiation; and other functions. Genes involved in immune response, such as ERAP2 and STAT4, and those regulating cell differentiations, such as MUC1, were discerned to be differentially expressed. These gene products were expressed in the placental villus tissues, either in the cytoplasm or in the membrane of syncytiotrophoblastic cells. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study in comparing differentially expressed genes in placentae from patients undergone ART treatment vs. those underwent normal pregnancy. Abnormal profiles of critical placental functioning genes, such as ERAP2, STAT4 and MUC1, may be valuable biomarkers to understand how the placenta affects fetal development and ART-derived offspring's health problems. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Researchers are more and more concerning the safety of fetus or offspring derived from assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. As the placenta is a critical organ that sustains and protects the fetus, we hypothesize that altered global gene expression of the placenta subjected to ART manipulation may reflect changes associated with ART procedures and subsequently causal related to offspring health. METHODS: Three term placenta samples were obtained from patients undergone in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer due to oviductal factors only. Other three control placentae were from those underwent normal pregnancy. A GeneChip Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 Array was utilized to analyze the genes. Using qRT-PCR we certified microarray data from 10 dysregulated genes. Five genes were localized precisely in the placenta as per immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Twenty-six differentially expressed genes were identified in the ART-treated placentae: 17 up-regulated; 9 down-regulated. Eighteen of these were classified into six groups according to critical placental function: immune response; transmembrane transport; metabolism; oxidative stress; cell differentiation; and other functions. Genes involved in immune response, such as ERAP2 and STAT4, and those regulating cell differentiations, such as MUC1, were discerned to be differentially expressed. These gene products were expressed in the placental villus tissues, either in the cytoplasm or in the membrane of syncytiotrophoblastic cells. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study in comparing differentially expressed genes in placentae from patients undergone ART treatment vs. those underwent normal pregnancy. Abnormal profiles of critical placental functioning genes, such as ERAP2, STAT4 and MUC1, may be valuable biomarkers to understand how the placenta affects fetal development and ART-derived offspring's health problems. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: L Zhao; L F Sun; X L Zheng; J F Liu; R Zheng; Y Wang; R Yang; L Zhang; L Yu; H Zhang Journal: Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban Date: 2019-02-18
Authors: Deepali P Sundrani; Umakar S Reddy; Asmita A Joshi; Savita S Mehendale; Preeti M Chavan-Gautam; Anandwardhan A Hardikar; Giriraj R Chandak; Sadhana R Joshi Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Lori D Hill; DaShaunda D Hilliard; Timothy P York; Sindhu Srinivas; Juan P Kusanovic; Ricardo Gomez; Michal A Elovitz; Roberto Romero; Jerome F Strauss Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Boris Novakovic; Ryan K Yuen; Lavinia Gordon; Maria S Penaherrera; Andrew Sharkey; Ashley Moffett; Jeffrey M Craig; Wendy P Robinson; Richard Saffery Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: A P A van Montfoort; L L P Hanssen; P de Sutter; S Viville; J P M Geraedts; P de Boer Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Derek L Vanhille; Lori D Hill; Dashaunda D Hilliard; Eun D Lee; Maria E Teves; Sindhu Srinivas; Juan P Kusanovic; Ricardo Gomez; Efstratios Stratikos; Michal A Elovitz; Roberto Romero; Jerome F Strauss Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 2.183