| Literature DB >> 33850943 |
Maryam Hosseinzadeh Shirzeyli1, Fardin Amidi2, Mehdi Shamsara3, Hamid Nazarian1, Fatemeh Eini4, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Shirzeyli5, Masoumeh Majidi Zolbin2, Marefat Ghaffari Novin6, Morteza Daliri Joupari3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Assisted reproduction; Fertilization; MitoQ; Oocyte in vitro maturation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33850943 PMCID: PMC8035425 DOI: 10.30498/IJB.2020.154641.2454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Biotechnol ISSN: 1728-3043 Impact factor: 1.671
Effect of different concentration of MitoQ in maturation media on mouse oocytes developmental competence, compared to in vivo-control, in vitro-control and sham groups.
| Sham | MitoQ (0.01 µM) | MitoQ (0.02 µM) | MitoQ (0.04 µM) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maturation rate | ---- | 71.14 ± 0.91 | 69.25 ± 1.38 | 89.01 ± 1.40 a | 92.6 ± 0.92a | 83.05 ± 0.91c |
| Matured (per initiated) | 178 | 156 | 163 | 169 | 153 | 171 |
| Fertilization rate (%) | 92.1±1.90a | 78.84 ± 1.54 | 77.91 ± 1.31 | 85.79 ± 2.20 | 90.19 ± 2.01a | 80.7 ± 1.58 |
| Cleavage rate (%) | 88 ± 2.48 a | 65.75 ± 2.49 | 63.75 ± 1.31 | 76.66 ± 1.75 cd | 80.62 ± 1.67ad | 68 ± 1.47 |
| Blastulation (%) | 83 ± 2.48 b | 58 ± 2.16 | 57.25 ± 2.56 | 73.5 ± 2.62 cd | 81.66 ± 1.85b | 64 ± 3.02 |
Each experiment involved four replicates. Mean ± SEM
Each experiment involved four replicates. Mean ± SEM
aP ≤ 0.01 versus in vitro-control and sham
bP ≤ 0.01 versus in vitro-control, sham, 0.01 and 0.04 μM MitoQ
cP ≤ 0.05 versus in vitro-control and sham
dP ≤ 0.05 versus 0.04 μM MitoQ
Figure 1Representative images of all experimental groups to detect intracellular ROS (Stained with D H2DCFDA) as green fluorescence (A) and GSH (Stained with Cell Tracker Blue) as blue fluorescent (B). All images captured in 20X magnification. In the 0.01 and 0.02 µM MitoQ supplemented groups, compared with other IVM groups, the level of ROS significantly decreased and on the other side, the GSH level had a significant increase. Although there were a lower intracellular ROS and a higher intracellular GSH level in the in vivo-control group compared to 0.02 µM. Scale bar = 50 µm a, in vivo-control, ba, in vitro-control, c, sham, d. 0.01 µM MitoQ, e. 0.02 µM MitoQ and f, 0.04 µM MitoQ. C and D are the quantification data of acquired fluorescence images and representing the ROS and GSH levels and each column in these graphs indicates the significant difference between the control, sham and treated groups (Mean ± SEM). a, versus in vivo- control and 0.02 µM MitoQ (p <0.01); b, versus 0.01 µM MitoQ (p <0.05); c, versus in vivo-control and 0.02 µM MitoQ (p <0.05).
Figure 2JC-1 Representative images of all experimental groups, all images captured in 20X magnification. ΔΨm was significantly increased in the 0.02 µM MitoQ and in vivo-control groups compared to other IVM groups (p<0.001). Scale bar = 20 µm, a, in vivo-control, b, in vitro-control, c, sham, d. 0.01µM MitoQ, e. 0.02 µM MitoQ and f, 0.04 µM MitoQ.
Figure 3green ratio. Each column in these graphs indicates the significant difference between control, sham and treated groups (Mean ± SEM). a, versus in vivo-control and 0.02 µM MitoQ (p <0. 01)