| Literature DB >> 32993198 |
Ximo Garcia-Dominguez1, Gianfranco Diretto2, Sarah Frusciante2, José Salvador Vicente1, Francisco Marco-Jiménez1.
Abstract
Although assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) are recognised as safe, and most of the offspring seem apparently healthy, there is clear evidence that ARTs are associated with changes in the embryo's developmental trajectory, which incur physiological consequences during the prenatal and postnatal stages of life. The present study aimed to address the influence of early (day-3 embryos) embryo transfer and cryopreservation on embryo survival, size, and metabolome at the preimplantation stage (day-6 embryos). To this end, fresh-transferred (FT) and vitrified-transferred (VT) embryos were compared using naturally-conceived (NC) embryos as a control reference. The results show that as in vitro manipulation was increased (NC < FT < VT), both embryo survival rate (0.91 ± 0.02, 0.78 ± 0.05 and 0.63 ± 0.05, for NC, FT, and VT groups, respectively) and embryo size (3.21 ± 0.49 mm, 2.15 ± 0.51 mm, 1.76 ± 0.46 mm of diameter for NC, FT, and VT groups, respectively) were significantly decreased. Moreover, an unbiased metabolomics analysis showed overall down-accumulation in 40 metabolites among the three experimental groups, with embryo transfer and embryo cryopreservation procedures both exerting a cumulative effect. In this regard, targeted metabolomics findings revealed a significant reduction in some metabolites involved in metabolic pathways, such as the Krebs cycle, amino acids, unsaturated fatty acids, and arachidonic acid metabolisms. Altogether, these findings highlight a synergistic effect between the embryo transfer and vitrification procedures in preimplantation embryos. However, the ex vivo manipulation during embryo transfer seemed to be the major trigger of the embryonic changes, as the deviations added by the vitrification process were relatively smaller.Entities:
Keywords: cryopreservation; developmental plasticity; developmental programming; embryo manipulation; metabolism; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32993198 PMCID: PMC7582512 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21197116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Morphometric analysis of 6-day-old embryos after in vivo development by natural conception or following fresh or vitrified embryo transfer.
| Experimental groups | n | Diameter (mm) | Perimeter (mm) | Area (mm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vitrified-transferred | 93 | 1.76 ± 0.46 c | 5.81 ± 1.55 c | 2.63 ± 1.34 c |
| Fresh-transferred | 88 | 2.15 ± 0.51 b | 7.27 ± 1.67 b | 3.79 ± 1.67 b |
| Naturally-conceived | 176 | 3.21 ± 0.49 a | 10.67 ± 1.47 a | 8.15 ± 2.39 a |
| 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.002 | ||
| Foster mother effect | 7 | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.36 ± 0.31 | 0.35 ± 0.36 |
| 0.249 | 0.241 | 0.337 | ||
n: number of embryos. Data are expressed as mean ± standard error. a,b,c Values within a column with different superscripts differ statistically.
Figure 1Unbiased metabolomic data (untargeted study) comparing the metabolic profile of naturally-conceived (NC) embryos and those in vivo developed after fresh embryo transfer (FT) and vitrified embryo transfer (VT). Principal components analysis biplots of the (A) semi-polar and (B) non-polar metabolites. Venn diagrams comparing the number of targeted (C) semi-polar and (D) non-polar differentially accumulated metabolites after fresh embryo transfer (FT/NC), vitrified embryo transfer (VT/NC), and embryo cryopreservation (VT/FT).
Targeted identification of differentially accumulated metabolites in day-6 embryos after in vivo development by natural conception or following fresh or vitrified embryo transfer. Asterisk denotes statistical differences. FT/NC: fresh embryo transfer/naturally-conceived. VT/NC: vitrified embryo transfer/naturally-conceived. VT/FT: vitrified embryo transfer/ fresh embryo transfer. FC: fold change.
| Metabolic Pathway | FT/NC | VT/NC | VT/FT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FC | adj | FC | adj | FC | adj | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Succinate | −0.86 * | 0.03 | 0.37 | −1.13 * | 0.02 | 0.20 | −0.27 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
|
| |||||||||
| Glutamine | −0.99 * | 0.05 | 0.37 | −1.43 * | 0.03 | 0.20 | −0.43 | 0.60 | 0.92 |
| Threonine | −1.19 * | 0.04 | 0.37 | −1.10 * | 0.05 | 0.27 | 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
| Proline | −0.20 | 0.31 | 0.81 | −0.54 * | 0.04 | 0.20 | −0.34 | 0.17 | 0.92 |
| Valine | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.96 | 1.30 * | 0.03 | 0.20 | 0.95 * | 0.05 | 0.92 |
|
| |||||||||
| Adrenic acid | −3.04 * | 0.05 | 0.29 | −4.90 * | 0.05 | 0.23 | −1.86 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| Arachidonic acid | −3.00 * | 0.05 | 0.29 | −4.43 * | 0.05 | 0.23 | −1.43 | 0.85 | 1.00 |
| Docosapentaenoic acid | −2.23 * | 0.05 | 0.29 | −4.19 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −1.96 | 0.67 | 1.00 |
| Eicosapentaenoic acid | −1.45 * | 0.05 | 0.29 | −1.99 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −0.54 | 0.70 | 1.00 |
|
| |||||||||
| Prostacyclin | −2.47 * | 0.02 | 0.29 | −3.14 * | 0.02 | 0.22 | −0.67 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| 19-/20-hydroxyarachidonic acid | −1.83 * | 0.04 | 0.29 | −2.46 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −0.63 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| 11(12)oxido-5,8,14-eicosatrienoic acid | −1.83 * | 0.04 | 0.29 | −2.46 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −0.63 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| 14(15)oxido-5,8,11-eicosatrienoic acid | −1.83 * | 0.04 | 0.29 | −2.46 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −0.63 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| 5(6)oxido-8,11,14-eicosatrienoic acid | −1.90 * | 0.04 | 0.29 | −2.46 * | 0.03 | 0.22 | −0.56 | 0.78 | 1.00 |
| 5-HETE | −1.98 * | 0.02 | 0.29 | −2.95 * | 0.01 | 0.22 | −0.97 | 0.67 | 1.00 |
Figure 2Experimental design. First of all, day-5 fresh and vitrified embryos were compared after 48 h of in vitro development under standard conditions. Their developmental potential and morphometric features were assessed. Moreover, day-6 preimplantation embryos obtained after fresh and vitrified embryo transfer were compared using naturally conceived embryos as reference. In this case, their recovery rates, morphometric features, and metabolomics profiles were analysed.