| Literature DB >> 35947672 |
Dandan Liu1,2,3, Yidong Chen1,2,3,4,5, Yixin Ren1,2,3, Peng Yuan1,2, Nan Wang1,3, Qiang Liu1,2, Cen Yang1,2, Zhiqiang Yan1,2, Ming Yang1,4,5, Jing Wang1,2, Ying Lian1, Jie Yan1,2, Fan Zhai1,2, Yanli Nie1,2, Xiaohui Zhu1,2, Yuan Chen1, Rong Li1,2, Hsun-Ming Chang1, Peter C K Leung1, Jie Qiao1,2,3,4,5,6, Liying Yan1,2.
Abstract
Mechanisms of implantation such as determination of the attachment pole, fetal-maternal communication, and underlying causes of implantation failure are largely unexplored. Here, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on peri-implantation embryos from both humans and mice to explore trophectoderm (TE) development and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. We found that the transcriptomes of polar and mural TE diverged after embryos hatched from the zona pellucida in both species, with polar TE being more mature than mural TE. The implantation poles show similarities in cell cycle activities, as well as in expression of genes critical for implantation and placentation. Embryos that either fail to attach in vitro or fail to implant in vivo show abnormalities in pathways related to energy production, protein metabolism, and 18S ribosomal RNA m6A methylation. These findings uncover the gene expression characteristics of humans and mice TE differentiation during the peri-implantation period and provide new insights into embryo implantation.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35947672 PMCID: PMC9365277 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abj3725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.957
Fig. 1.scRNA-seq transcriptome profiling of peri-implantation embryos.
(A) Representative images of three human embryonic stages. Left: Stage I, B3 and B4, days 5 and 6, blastocyst with zona. Middle: Stage II, B6, days 6 and 7, hatched blastocyst. Right: Stage III, days 7 and 8, hatched blastocyst cocultured with ISK cells for 24 hours and attached to ISK cells. Scale bar, 50 μm. (B) Representative images of mouse stage III embryo. Scale bars, 100 μm. (C) Schematic illustration of TE cell subtype identification. Blue cell: MTE, pink cell: PTE, orange cell: PE, purple cell: EPI, and green cell: coISK. (D and E) Process of dissecting S2 (D) and S3 (E) embryos under microscopy by laser and digested single cells. The red line shows the cutting path. (F) Immunofluorescence images show the embryo–endometrial cell coculture system (human embryo).
Fig. 2.Human TE cell differentiation during peri-implantation.
(A) Cell lineage identification of S1, S2, and S3 TEs (first three columns). Integrated analysis of S2 TE in this study and E6 and E7 TE from the previous study [Petropoulos et al. ()] (last column). (B) Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of highly variable genes in TE cells of three stages and the corresponding GO analysis. (C) Pseudotime analysis of TE cells of three stages. The arrows show the developmental trajectory. Colors represent corresponding cell types. (D) Dot plots show relative gene expression levels [log2 (TPM/10 + 1), average levels ± SEMs] of specifically expressed genes for each TE cell type. (E) Immunofluorescence images of the TE-specific gene CYP26A1 in S1 embryos, MTE-specific gene HAND1, and the PTE-specific gene GCM1 in S2 embryos. ICM is marked by an *. Scale bar, 100 μm.
Fig. 3.Comparison of mouse TE with human TE.
(A) Cell lineage identification of mouse S1, S2, and S3 TEs. (B) Immunofluorescence images of GATA3 and RXRA in mouse S2 embryos. Scale bar, 100 μm. (C) Cell cycle analysis of MTE and PTE in human and mouse. (D) Immunofluorescence images of Ki67 in human and mouse S2 embryos. Scale bars, 100 μm. (E) Bar plots showing relative expression levels [log2 (TPM/10 + 1), average levels ± SEMs] of specific genes in the implantation pole of human and mouse embryo. (F) Expression pattern and functional annotations of the common DEGs in implantation poles of human and mouse embryo. (G) Immunofluorescence images of FMNL2 in human and mouse S2 embryos. (H) The left panel shows immunofluorescence images showing colocalization of Fmnl2 and F-actin at the attachment site of mouse embryos. The right panel shows the same image with top view and side view. Please note that in the side view, ICM is marked by an *, MTE is marked by an arrow, and PTE is marked by an arrowhead. Scale bar, 100 μm.
Fig. 4.Embryo–endometrial cell interactions during attachment.
(A) Cell adhesion molecule enrichment analysis in embryo cells and coISK cells. Relative expression levels are defined as log2 (TPM/10 + 1). (B and C) Top ligand-receptor pairs predicted by CellPhoneDB between coISK and S3PTE. (D) Three-dimensional PCA plot of DEGs between cocultured ISK cells (coISK) and control ISK cells. (E) Bar plots showing relative expression levels [log2 (TPM/10 + 1), average levels ± SEMs] of selected genes induced in coISK.
Fig. 5.Analysis of embryos that failed to attach in vitro or failed to implant in the clinic.
(A) Schematic of the embryo–ISK cell coculture model. Top: AS. Bottom: AF. (B) UMAP analysis of each AF embryo and AS embryos. (C) The number of up- and down-regulated DEGs in four AF embryos. (D) GO analysis of overlapped up- and down-regulated DEGs in the AF embryos. The circle sizes display the number of involved genes in each term. (E) Bar plots showing relative expression levels [log2 (TPM/10 + 1)] of selected up- and down-regulated genes in the AS and AF MTE. (F) Heatmap shows the expression levels of DEGs between AS and AF MTE. Colors from blue to red represent the expression level from low to high. (G) Sample information of embryos with successful or failed implantation embryos in PGT. (H) Heatmap showing the expression levels of DEGs between IS and IF (implantation failure) embryos. Colors from blue to red indicate the expression level from low to high. (I) Bar plots showing relative expression levels [log2 (TPM/10 + 1)] of representative genes in IS and IF MTE.