| Literature DB >> 35313911 |
Xiaoping Liu1, Huisi Mai1, Panyu Chen1, Zhiqiang Zhang1, Taibao Wu1, Jianhui Chen1, Peng Sun1, Chuanchuan Zhou1, Xiaoyan Liang1, Rui Huang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both mild and conventional controlled ovarian stimulation are the frequently used protocols for poor ovarian responders. However, there are some debates about which treatment is better. Moreover, little is known about the follicular physiology after the two ovarian stimulation protocols. This study was intended to investigate the features in granulosa cells and follicular fluid micro-environment after the two different ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders.Entities:
Keywords: Controlled ovarian stimulation; Follicular fluid micro-environment; Granulosa cells; Mild ovarian stimulation; Poor ovarian response; TGF-β signaling pathway; Transcriptome analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35313911 PMCID: PMC8935846 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-022-00926-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
Primers used for RT-PCR
| Genes | Forward primer sequence (5’-3’) | Reverse primer sequence (5’-3’) |
|---|---|---|
| GGAGCGAGATCCCTCCAAAAT | GGCTGTTGTCATACTTCTCATGG | |
| CACCTGTGTCGCAGTCCTGTTG | CGGGAGGCAGCATCGTTGTG | |
| GCCACCATTCCAGCAGATCCG | CCGCTCCTCCACCAGTTCCTC | |
| TCCTTGTGGTCCTTGCTGTTGC | GAAGGAGGCTGCGTGTGCTAC | |
| CCTGGAGGCGGTGGAGACG | GCGACGGTCATGCGGTTCTG | |
| GTCTTCGTGCTCTGCTGGTTCC | GCCGAGCCAGAAGATGACCTTG | |
| TCCATCGCTTCGCTGTTGCTTC | AAGGTGCTCCGCTTGGTTTGC | |
| TCCCCAACACCTTCCCACAGTC | GGCACTCCAGCGTCACAATCTC | |
| ACACCATCTCCGACACCTCCAG | GTCCGCTGCCGCCTTTGC | |
| TGTGACCGCCTCTGGATCTGG | GCCACATCTTCCCCACACCATC | |
| GAAGCTCTGCGTGACTGTCCTG | GGCGGTGGGAGGGTCTGAG | |
| GGCCGAGGATCTGGGACTGAG | GGAGCAACACCAGGCAGCAG | |
| GTGGCTTTGTGGGCTCTGACTG | CGAAAGTGGCGGAGGAATGACC | |
| ACAAGAGCAGAAGGCGAATGGC | GTGCAGCAGGGACAGTGTAAGC | |
| GGTGCCCAGGCTATTCGGAAAC | TGAAGCGACGCCACAATCCTTG | |
| GCCCCTTGCCCTGACCACTAC | TGCGATTGCACTCCTGCTTGAC | |
| GCTCGGACGCAATCTGTGAGG | AGTGGGCTGGACAGTGATGGG | |
| CGTGGAGCTGGCCGAGGAG | GCAGGCAGAAGAGCGTGGTG | |
| GACTTGGAGGTGTGGCGAAGC | CAGTGGCAGCCTGACGGTTG | |
| CCACCTTGGAACTGCCACACG | TAGCTTCGCACCCAGGTCCAG | |
| GGCTACATGGTCAGTGGCTGTG | TCCAGGGAGCTGAGAACCTTCC |
GAPDH glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, CREB3L3 cAMP responsive element binding protein 3 like 3, NPR1 natriuretic peptide receptor 1, TRPC6 transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily C member 6, ATP1A4 ATPase Na+/K+ transporting subunit alpha 4, ADRA1D adrenoceptor alpha 1D, CACNA1D calcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha 1D, DAN MINOS1-NBL1, MINOS1-NBL1 readthrough, PITX2 paired like homeodomain 2, ALK7 ACVR1C, activin A receptor type 1C, CCL4 C–C motif chemokine ligand 4, VEGI TNFSF15, TNF superfamily member 15, IL21R interleukin 21 receptor, TGFβ2 transforming growth factor beta 2, TSLP thymic stromal lymphopoietin, OPG TNFRSF11B, TNF receptor superfamily member 11b, OX40 TNFRSF4, TNF receptor superfamily member 4, TNF tumor necrosis factor, CLCF1 cardiotrophin like cytokine factor 1, CCL26 C–C motif chemokine ligand 26, CCR4 C–C motif chemokine receptor 4
Clinical characteristics and outcomes of the two groups
| Mild group | COS group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 39.19 ± 3.25 | 38.05 ± 3.72 | 0.264 |
| AMH (ng/ml) | 0.61 ± 0.30 | 0.77 ± 0.22 | 0.053 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.08 ± 2.66 | 21.70 ± 1.92 | 0.051 |
| Basal FSH (U/L) | 8.68 ± 2.90 | 9.67 ± 5.27 | 0.415 |
| Basal E2 (pg/ml) | 54.23 ± 21.28 | 48.38 ± 18.75 | 0.326 |
| Basal LH (U/L) | 4.18 ± 1.42 | 4.32 ± 2.06 | 0.783 |
| Duration of stimulation (days) | 5.93 ± 1.64 | 10.67 ± 1.49 | < 0.001a |
| Total gonadotropin/cycle (IU) | 867.59 ± 241.37 | 3152.38 ± 408.19 | < 0.001a |
| Serum E2 level on trigger day (pg/ml) | 522.33 ± 325.11 | 1205.13 ± 504.42 | < 0.001a |
| Serum LH level on trigger day (U/L) | 5.94 ± 5.43 | 2.91 ± 1.52 | 0.017a |
| Serum P level on trigger day (ng/ml) | 0.47 ± 0.35 | 0.79 ± 0.41 | 0.006a |
| No. of oocytes retrieved | 3.48 ± 1.40 | 5.29 ± 3.50 | 0.018a |
| No. of oocytes in metaphase II | 2.70 ± 1.43 | 3.29 ± 2.70 | 0.342 |
| Rate of oocytes in metaphase II (%) | 77.66 | 62.16 | 0.017 a |
| No. of 2PN oocytes | 2.22 ± 1.28 | 3.14 ± 2.59 | 0.114 |
| No. of transferrable embryos | 2.00 ± 1.24 | 2.48 ± 2.02 | 0.319 |
| No. of good-quality embryos | 1.83 ± 1.24 | 1.76 ± 1.68 | 0.881 |
| Rate of good-quality embryos (%) | 75.86 | 57.69 | 0.043 a |
Values expressed as means ± SD or percentage. AMH anti-müllerian hormone, BMI body mass index, FSH follicle stimulating hormone, E estradiol, LH luteinizing hormone, P progesterone; 2PN 2 pronuclei
aResults are significantly different between the two groups
Fig. 1Pearson correlation analysis between samples. The color key from blue to white indicates the correlation from high to low
Fig. 2Cluster and filter analyses of DEGs. A Heatmap of the DEGs between the two groups. The color key from blue to red indicates the relative gene expression level from low to high. B Volcano map showing the DEGs. The x-axis shows the foldchange in gene expression, and the y-axis shows significant statistical differences. Red dots represent up-regulated genes, and green dots represent down-regulated genes
Fig. 3GO enrichment analysis of DEGs between the two groups. The x-axis shows the five representative enrichment terms in three categories, including biological process in green bars, cellular component in blue bars and molecular function in red bars. The y-axis represents -log10(P value). Compared with COS group, A genes up-regulated in mild group, and B genes down-regulated in mild group
Top ten KEGG pathways of DEGs between the two groups
| Pathway Id | Name of KEGG pathway | No. of genes | Genes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hsa04060 | Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction | 13 | 2.46E-07 | |
| hsa05410 | Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy | 5 | 5.62E-04 | |
| hsa04350 | TGF-β signaling pathway | 5 | 5.92E-04 | |
| hsa04640 | Hematopoietic cell lineage | 5 | 7.23E-04 | |
| hsa05414 | Dilated cardiomyopathy | 5 | 7.96E-04 | |
| hsa04022 | cGMP-PKG signaling pathway | 6 | 2.12E-03 | |
| hsa00512 | Mucin type O-Glycan biosynthesis | 3 | 2.15E-03 | |
| hsa04976 | Bile secretion | 4 | 2.56E-03 | |
| hsa05412 | Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy | 4 | 2.95E-03 | |
| hsa01100 | Metabolic pathways | 19 | 3.74E-03 |
Fig. 4Validation of the RNA sequencing results using RT-qPCR. A Bars extending to the right or left of zero coordinate represent up or down regulated genes, respectively. Black bars represent expression of transcript in RNA sequencing while grey bars represent expression of the same transcript presented by RT-qPCR. B Comparison of expression of 7 selected genes between the two groups. Asterisk (*) above the bar represents statistical difference in RT-qPCR experiments. *P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001
Fig. 5Western blot analysis of TGF-β signaling pathway specific proteins TGF-β2, TGF-βR2, Smad2 and Smad3 in the mild and COS groups. GAPDH used as a control. A Western blot results. B Quantity analysis based on the Western blot results. Mild group (n = 10), and COS group (n = 8). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; NS No significant
Hormone and cytokine concentrations in FF between the two groups
| Mild group | COS group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AMH (ng/ml) | 1.05 ± 0.51 | 1.54 ± 1.02 | 0.095 |
| FSH (IU/L) | 4.76 ± 1.55 | 9.80 ± 3.27 | < 0.001a |
| E2 (ng/ml) | 394.97 ± 262.84 | 325.67 ± 169.20 | 0.390 |
| LH (IU/L) | 6.80 ± 4.65 | 1.02 ± 0.99 | < 0.001a |
| PRL (ng/ml) | 33.34 ± 18.79 | 58.49 ± 29.64 | 0.007a |
| T (ng/ml) | 45.59 ± 21.03 | 5.47 ± 2.19 | < 0.001a |
| P (μg/ml) | 37.64 ± 21.95 | 79.58 ± 21.41 | < 0.001a |
| TGF-β2 (pg/ml) | 21.21 ± 10.51 | 11.89 ± 8.21 | 0.014 a |
| GDF-9 (pg/ml) | 61.22 ± 17.62 | 194.90 ± 56.47 | < 0.001a |
| BMP-15 (pg/ml) | 42.60 ± 7.01 | 41.67 ± 11.18 | 0.777 |
Values expressed as means ± SD. AMH anti-müllerian hormone, FSH follicle stimulating hormone, E2 estradiol, LH luteinizing hormone, PRL prolactin, T testosterone, P progesterone, TGF-β2 transforming growth factor-β2, GDF-9 growth differentiation factor-9, BMP-15 bone morphogenetic protein-15
aResults are significantly different between the two groups
Fig. 6Spearman correlation analysis between the TGF-β2 level in the FF and the rate of the good-quality embryo. The scatter diagrams of the two groups show the monotonic relationship between the TGF-β2 level and the rate of the good-quality embryo, r is correlation coefficient and P < 0.05 indicates that the correlation is statistically significant
Fig. 7Schematic diagram of the results in the background of cross-talkings within the follicle. The red and blue arrows represent the COS group and the mild group, respectively. The up and down arrows represent up-regulation and down-regulation, respectively. a Histologic and functional architecture of a mature follicle. Panels b, c, and d summarize the main findings of this study. b The KEGG analysis of DEGs between the two groups. After sequencing and analyzing the DEGs of granulosa cells from the two groups, the KEGG analysis showed four signaling pathways associated with the oocyte development. c Comparative analyses of the rate of good-quality embryos as well as the hormones and cytokines in the FF. Significantly higher rates of good-quality embryos were observed in the mild group. Compared with the COS group, the FSH and P levels in the FF were significantly lower in the mild group while the LH and T levels significantly higher. As for the cytokine concentrations, a significantly higher TGF-β2 concentration and a significantly lower GDF-9 level were detected in the mild group. d Comparative analyses of TGF-β2, TGF-βR2 and Smad3 in granulosa cells as well as TGF-β2 in the FF. The expressions of TGF-β2, TGF-βR2 and Smad3 in the mild group were significantly upregulated compared with the COS group