4.7 Review

Biomolecular Markers of Recurrent Implantation Failure-A Review

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms221810082

Keywords

recurrent implantation failure; endometrial receptivity; vaginal microbiota; risk factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Infertility affects 8-12% of reproductive age couples worldwide, with a significant impact on women experiencing recurrent implantation failure (RIF). RIF is a complex condition involving various physiological and molecular mechanisms, with studies suggesting associations with hormone level imbalances, disturbances of angiogenic and immunomodulatory factors, certain genetic polymorphisms, and ethnicity-related inconsistencies. This review highlights the importance of factors contributing to RIF development, potentially paving the way for new diagnostic and therapeutic solutions.
Currently, infertility affects 8-12% of reproductive age couples worldwide, a problem that also affects women suffering from recurrent implantation failure (RIF). RIF is a complex condition resulting from many physiological and molecular mechanisms involving dynamic endometrium-blastocyst interaction. The most important are the endometrial receptivity process, decidualization, trophoblast invasion, and blastocyst nesting. Although the exact multifactorial pathogenesis of RIF remains unclear, many studies have suggested the association between hormone level imbalance, disturbances of angiogenic and immunomodulatory factors, certain genetic polymorphisms, and occurrence of RIF. These studies were performed in quite small groups. Additionally, the results are inconsistent between ethnicities. The present review briefly summarizes the importance of factors involved in RIF development that could also serve as diagnostic determinants. Moreover, our review could constitute part of a new platform for discovery of novel diagnostic and therapeutic solutions for RIF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available