| Literature DB >> 35846297 |
Yue Gao1, Jingjie Li2, Shicheng Fan1, Pan Chen3, Min Huang1, Huichang Bi1,4.
Abstract
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a serious iatrogenic complication during ovarian stimulation. Even though the incidence of OHSS was relatively low in clinical practice, the consequence can be potentially devastating and life-threatening. Abnormal lipid metabolism may relate to the pathological development of OHSS, but there is still a research gap in the lipidomic research. So here in our study, an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-HRMS) based lipidomic analysis was performed using follicular fluid samples obtained from 17 patients undergoing OHSS. The lipid profiles of OHSS patients were characterized by increased cholesterol ester (ChE) and decreased lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), phosphatidylinositol (PI), sphingomyelin (SM), dimethylphosphatidylethanolamine (dMePE) and lysodimethylphosphatidylethanolamine (LdMePE). Totally 10 lipids including LPC(18:0), SM(d18:1/16:0), PC(18:0/18:1), PC(20:2/20:5), PC(16:0/18:1), TG(16:0/18:1/18:1), TG(16:0/18:2/18:2), TG(16:0/16:1/18:1), ChE(20:4) and TG(8:0/8:0/10:0) were selected as differential lipids. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the alteration of various lipids in OHSS patients, which suggested the key role of lipids during the development of OHSS and shed light on the further pathophysiological research of OHSS.Entities:
Keywords: UHPLC-ESI-HRMS; biomarkers; follicular fluids; lipidomics; ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35846297 PMCID: PMC9276923 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.895116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Characteristics of participant.
| Control ( | OHSS ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32.04 ± 0.75 | 30.29 ± 0.71 | 0.1162 |
|
| 21.42 ± 0.43 | 21.43 ± 0.53 | 0.9804 |
|
| 4.61 ± 0.52 | 5.88 ± 0.73 | 0.155 |
|
| 0.24 ± 0.17 | 0.25 ± 0.125 | 0.926 |
|
| 5381 ± 323.4 | 5720 ± 447.6 | 0.5323 |
|
| 1.03 ± 0.16 | 0.79 ± 0.11 | 0.2709 |
|
| 1972 ± 151.8 | 1628 ± 172.2 | 0.1474 |
|
| 17 ± 0.96 | 20.41 ± 1.69 | 0.0671 |
Values are presented as mean ± S.D.
Figure 1The mirror plots under positive mode (A) and negative mode (B) showed there were significant differences between Control and OHSS group. The OPLS-DA plots under positive mode (C) and negative mode (D) indicated a distinct lipid profiles between two groups.
Figure 2The heatmaps under positive mode (A) and negative mode (B) showed the intensities and change trend of 9 classes of lipids in Control and OHSS group. The volcano plots under positive mode (C) and negative mode (D) suggested the 5 most discriminant lipids with fold change>2.0 and p <0.05 (the lipids were highlighted in blue in the figures).
Detailed information of significantly changed lipids between OHSS patients and healthy controls.
| Lipid molecular | Molecular formula | Adduct |
|
| VIP Value | Fold change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| ChE(20:4) | C47H76O2 | M+NH4 | 690.617 | 0.004 | 1.086 | 2.027 |
| LPC(18:0) | C26H54O7N1P1 | M+H | 524.370 | 0.015 | 1.481 | 0.724 |
| PC(18:0/18:1) | C44H86O8N1P1 | M+H | 788.613 | 0.017 | 1.423 | 0.641 |
| PC(20:2/20:5) | C48H82O8N1P1 | M+H | 832.582 | 0.0005 | 1.780 | 0.499 |
| TG(16:0/16:1/18:2) | C53H96O6 | M+NH4 | 846.753 | 0.018 | 1.466 | 0.664 |
| TG(16:0/18:1/18:1) | C55H102O6 | M+NH4 | 876.799 | 0.033 | 1.693 | 0.485 |
| TG(16:0/18:2/18:2) | C55H98O6 | M+NH4 | 872.769 | 0.033 | 1.829 | 0.610 |
| TG(8:0/8:0/10:0) | C29H54O6 | M+NH4 | 516.425 | 0.025 | 1.275 | 1.153 |
|
| ||||||
| PC(16:0/18:2) | C42H80O8N1P1 | M+HCOO | 802.561 | 0.0495 | 4.008 | 0.391 |
| SM(d18:1/16:0) | C39H79O6N2P1 | M+HCOO | 747.566 | 0.010 | 1.501 | 0.273 |
Figure 3The intensities of ChE(20:4) and TG(8:0/8:0/10:0) were higher in OHSS group (A). The intensities of LPC(18:0), SM(d18:1/16:0), PC(18:0/18:1), PC(20:2/20:5), PC(16:0/18:1), TG(16:0/18:1/18:1), TG(16:0/18:2/18:2) and TG(16:0/16:1/18:1) were lower in OHSS group (B). Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, OHSS patients (OHSS, n = 17) vs. healthy controls (Control, n = 25).
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic curve for PC(20:2/20:5).