Literature DB >> 28863933

Window of implantation transcriptomic stratification reveals different endometrial subsignatures associated with live birth and biochemical pregnancy.

Patricia Díaz-Gimeno1, Maria Ruiz-Alonso2, Patricia Sebastian-Leon3, Antonio Pellicer4, Diana Valbuena2, Carlos Simón5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To refine the endometrial window of implantation (WOI) transcriptomic signature by defining new subsignatures associated to live birth and biochemical pregnancy.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: University-affiliated in vitro fertilization clinic and reproductive genetics laboratory. PATIENT(S): Healthy fertile oocyte donors (n = 79) and patients with infertility diagnosed by Endometrial Receptivity Analysis (n = 771). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): WOI transcriptomic signatures associated with specific reproductive outcomes. RESULT(S): The retrospective cohort study was designed to perform a prediction model based on transcriptomic clusters for endometrial classification (training set, n = 529). The clinical follow-up set in the expected WOI (n = 321) was tested with the transcriptomic predictor to detect WOI variability and the pregnancy outcomes associated with these subsignatures (n = 228). The endometrial receptivity signature was redefined into four WOI transcriptomic profiles. This stratification identified an optimal endometrial receptivity (RR) signature resulting in an ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of 80% in terms of live birth, as well as a late receptive-stage (LR) signature with a potential high risk of 50% biochemical pregnancy. Abnormal down-regulation of the cell cycle was the main dysregulated function among the 22 genes associated with biochemical pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): The major differences between the WOI transcriptomic stratification were in the OPR and biochemical pregnancy rate. The OPR ranged from 76.9% and 80% in the late prereceptive (LPR) and RR signatures, respectively, versus 33.3% in the LR. The biochemical pregnancy rate was 7.7% and 6.6% in LPR and RR, respectively, but 50% in LR, which highlights the relevance of endometrial status in the progression of embryonic implantation.
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biochemical pregnancy signature; endometrial genomic medicine; endometrial receptivity; endometrial transcriptomic predictors; transcriptomic stratification of uterine receptivity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28863933     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  11 in total

1.  Transcriptomic analysis of the interaction of choriocarcinoma spheroids with receptive vs. non-receptive endometrial epithelium cell lines: an in vitro model for human implantation.

Authors:  Paula Vergaro; Gustavo Tiscornia; Amelia Rodríguez; Josep Santaló; Rita Vassena
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure.

Authors:  Mauro Cozzolino; Patricia Diaz-Gimeno; Antonio Pellicer; Nicolas Garrido
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Evaluation of endometrial function: a Heraclean or Sisyphean task?

Authors:  Steven L Young
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Oviductal glycoprotein 1 (OVGP1) is expressed by endometrial epithelium that regulates receptivity and trophoblast adhesion.

Authors:  Saniya Laheri; Nancy Ashary; Purvi Bhatt; Deepak Modi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Genetic regulation of disease risk and endometrial gene expression highlights potential target genes for endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Authors:  Jenny N Fung; Sally Mortlock; Jane E Girling; Sarah J Holdsworth-Carson; Wan Tinn Teh; Zhihong Zhu; Samuel W Lukowski; Brett D McKinnon; Allan McRae; Jian Yang; Martin Healey; Joseph E Powell; Peter A W Rogers; Grant W Montgomery
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  15 years of transcriptomic analysis on endometrial receptivity: what have we learnt?

Authors:  Soumaya Messaoudi; Imane El Kasmi; Amelie Bourdiec; Kimberley Crespo; Laurence Bissonnette; Cecile Le Saint; François Bissonnette; Isaac-Jacques Kadoch
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2019-08-05

7.  Clinical summary guide: reproduction in women with previous abdominopelvic radiotherapy or total body irradiation.

Authors:  G Rozen; P Rogers; S Chander; R Anderson; O McNally; M Umstad; A Winship; K Hutt; W T Teh; A Dobrotwir; R Hart; W Ledger; K Stern
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2020-10-25

8.  Guidelines for biomarker discovery in endometrium: correcting for menstrual cycle bias reveals new genes associated with uterine disorders.

Authors:  Almudena Devesa-Peiro; Patricia Sebastian-Leon; Antonio Pellicer; Patricia Diaz-Gimeno
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 4.025

Review 9.  Investigation of infertility using endometrial organoids.

Authors:  Konstantina Nikolakopoulou; Margherita Y Turco
Journal:  Reproduction       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 3.906

10.  Comparison of the Effectiveness of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis (ERA) to Guide Personalized Embryo Transfer with Conventional Frozen Embryo Transfer in 281 Chinese Women with Recurrent Implantation Failure.

Authors:  Yan Jia; Yulin Sha; Zhu Qiu; Yanhua Guo; Aixiang Tan; Yan Huang; Ying Zhong; Yajun Dong; Hongxia Ye
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-03-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.