| Literature DB >> 32508665 |
Peng Huo1, Yunshan Zhu2, Chengqin Liang3, Jun Yao2, Jianghua Le2, Linyuan Qin1, Xiaocan Lei4, Shun Zhang2.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the correlation between amino acid profiling of a 3-day-old embryo culture medium and embryo implantation potential in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). The data of 98 patients who received IVF treatment in our hospital from December 2015 to February 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The 98 patients were grouped into a pregnant group (gemellary pregnancy), a non-pregnant group (non-pregnancy), and a blank control group. The amino acids from a 3-day-old embryo culture medium and blank control medium were collected and were analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The HPLC results showed that amino acids including aspartate (ASP), serine (SER), glycine (GLY), histidine (HIS), taurine (TAU), arginine (ARG), threonine (THR), alanine (ALA), and proline (PRO) were detected in the 3-day-old embryo culture medium and blank control medium. There are significant differences between the pregnant group and non-pregnant group in peak height (H)-SER, surface area (S)-ASP, S-SER, S-HIS, and S-ALA. The discrimination analysis according to the peak height and peak area of amino acids revealed that the prediction rate of the pregnant group, non-pregnant group, and blank control group were 82.7, 95.7, and 100%. Further, by using the principal component analysis, we found that the prediction rate in these three groups were 90.4, 91.3, and 100%. Our data may suggest that using amino acid concentrations for principal component analysis and discriminant analysis has high accuracy in predicting the relationship between amino acid fingerprint and embryo implantation potential.Entities:
Keywords: amino acid; embryo development potential; gemellary pregnancy; in vitro fertilization; principal component analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32508665 PMCID: PMC7251166 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Chromatographic gradient elution profile for amino acid analysis.
| 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 |
| 11.00 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 |
| 11.01 | 0.0 | 99.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.00 |
| 21.00 | 0.0 | 95.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 1.00 |
| 22.00 | 0.0 | 91.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 1.00 |
| 28.50 | 0.0 | 83.0 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 1.00 |
| 38.00 | 0.0 | 83.0 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 1.00 |
| 38.01 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 1.00 |
| 41.00 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 1.00 |
| 41.01 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 |
| 68.00 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 |
| 68.01 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 1.00 |
| 100.00 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 1.00 |
Clinical parameters of the recruited subjects.
| Age (years) | 29.53 ± 4.52 | 30.04 ± 4.56 | 0.609 |
| Duration of infertility (years) | 3.1 ± 1.97 | 3.17 ± 2.20 | 0.874 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 21.84 ± 3.00 | 21.90 ± 2.92 | 0.916 |
| Baseline FSH levels (IU/L) | 6.22 ± 1.25 | 5.96 ± 1.47 | 0.404 |
| Baseline LH levels (IU/L) | 5.48 ± 2.03 | 4.71 ± 1.88 | 0.071 |
| Baseline E2 levels (pg/mL) | 141.52 ± 47.48 | 132.42 ± 57.27 | 0.447 |
| Initial dose of gonadotropin (IU) | 194.17 ± 59.25 | 186.59 ± 54.92 | 0.540 |
| FSH levels on the day of starting gonadotropin administration (IU/L) | 3.46 ± 1.033 | 3.345 ± 1.41 | 0.709 |
| LH levels on the day of starting gonadotropin administration (IU/L) | 1.57 ± 0.81 | 1.62 ± 0.70 | 0.730 |
| E2 levels on the day of starting gonadotropin administration (pg/ml) | 54.11 ± 35.96 | 50.31 ± 35.69 | 0.628 |
| Progesterone levels on the day of starting gonadotropin administration (IU/L) | 1.70 ± 0.76 | 1.64 ± 0.61 | 0.682 |
| LH levels on the day of HCG administration (IU/L) | 2.28 ± 1.86 | 1.85 ± 1.02 | 0.140 |
| E2 levels on the day of HCG administration (ng/mL) | 15.18 ± 7.93 | 17.13 ± 7.49 | 0.248 |
| Progesterone levels on the day of HCG administration (IU/L) | 3.03 ± 0.89 | 3.02 ± 0.89 | 0.971 |
| Endometrial thickness on the day of embryo implantation | 10.26 ± 2.02 | 10.70 ± 2.38 | 0.374 |
Standard curve construction for amino acids.
| ASP | 142.4 | 183.1 | 223.6 | 265.5 | 289.7 | 0.9994 | |
| SER | 131.9 | 195.7 | 260.5 | 322.1 | 347.7 | 0.9992 | |
| GLU | 138.8 | 167 | 196.1 | 223 | 234.7 | 0.9992 | |
| GLY | 106.1 | 175.2 | 248.3 | 313.6 | 344 | 0.9993 | |
| HIS | 108.7 | 188.5 | 259.3 | 331.6 | 363.5 | 0.9991 | |
| ARG | 173.3 | 255.2 | 329.5 | 398.8 | 436.2 | 0.999 | |
| THR | 121.5 | 221 | 320.1 | 415.2 | 456.5 | 0.9994 | |
| ALA | 165.6 | 229.4 | 287.1 | 344.3 | 375.4 | 0.9993 | |
| PRO | 139 | 233.3 | 325 | 412 | 457.2 | 0.9998 | |
| CYS | 112.3 | 200.1 | 282.1 | 361.6 | 405 | 0.9995 | |
| TYR | 138.9 | 262 | 379.8 | 506 | 565.5 | 0.9999 | |
| VAL | 128 | 216.2 | 299.1 | 375.9 | 420.12 | 0.999 | |
| MET | 131 | 240.1 | 344.2 | 440.2 | 495.2 | 0.9995 | |
| LYS | 215.6 | 309.2 | 404.3 | 487.2 | 525.9 | 0.9993 | |
| ILE | 142 | 240.2 | 336.2 | 423.1 | 474 | 0.9998 | |
| LEU | 138.2 | 233.2 | 317.1 | 405.7 | 450.9 | 0.9994 | |
| PHE | 132.9 | 249.2 | 381.8 | 505.7 | 567.6 | 0.9999 | |
| TAU | 179.5 | 258.4 | 330.5 | 395.8 | 448.5 | 0.9945 |
Concentrations of amino acids in the recruited subjects.
| S-ASP | 107.71 ± 36.12 | 126.31 ± 45.58 | 0.028 |
| S-SER | 124.16 ± 43.27 | 42.56 ± 24.52 | 0 |
| S-GLY | 88.46 ± 60.34 | 86.35 ± 50.44 | 0.853 |
| S-HIS | 130.23 ± 37.54 | 80.74 ± 100.57 | 0.001 |
| S-TAU | 37.63 ± 15.63 | 34.72 ± 10.30 | 0.287 |
| S-ARG | 46.49 ± 17.64 | 41.15 ± 14.91 | 0.112 |
| S-THR | 82.64 ± 34.62 | 85.78 ± 27.57 | 0.625 |
| S-ALA | 118.12 ± 63.09 | 153.90 ± 42.21 | 0.002 |
| S-PRO | 41.06 ± 20.10 | 47.74 ± 18.75 | 0.095 |
| H-ASP | 6.28 ± 2.06 | 5.79 ± 2.65 | 0.315 |
| H-SER | 8.99 ± 2.83 | 3.63 ± 2.37 | 0 |
| H-GLY | 7.01 ± 2.13 | 6.27 ± 3.99 | 0.256 |
| H-HIS | 5.14 ± 3.04 | 4.99 ± 3.10 | 0.812 |
| H-TAU | 3.02 ± 1.43 | 2.94 ± 1.07 | 0.767 |
| H-ARG | 3.96 ± 1.48 | 3.88 ± 1.69 | 0.805 |
| H-THR | 8.80 ± 4.10 | 8.69 ± 3.01 | 0.884 |
| H-ALA | 11.47 ± 5.69 | 11.73 ± 3.11 | 0.783 |
| H-PRO | 3.78 ± 1.50 | 3.59 ± 1.12 | 0.47 |
FIGURE 1Discriminant analysis of amino acid profiles in the culture medium. (A) Canonical discriminant functions. (B) Classification results.
FIGURE 2Discriminant analysis of S-ASP, S-SER, S-HIS, S-ALA, and H-SER in the culture medium. (A) Canonical discriminant functions. (B) Classification results.
FIGURE 3Principal component analysis of S-ASP, S-SER, S-HIS, S-ALA, and H-SER. (A) Total variance explained. (B) Rotated component matrix.
FIGURE 4Discriminant analysis of the three components from principal component analysis. (A) Canonical discriminant functions. (B) Classification results.