4.4 Article

Embryo developmental capability and pregnancy outcome are related to the mitochondrial DNA copy number and ooplasmic volume

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1367-1375

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0062-6

关键词

Mitochondrial DNA; Blastomere volume; Ooplasmic volume; Aging

资金

  1. mitochondrial disease working group of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24791720] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the correlation between the ooplasmic volume and the number of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copies in embryos and how they may affect fecundity. Using real-time PCR, mtDNA quantification was analyzed in unfertilized oocytes and uncleaved embryos. The size of the ovum was also assessed by calculating the ooplasmic volume at the time of granulosa cell removal for IVF or ICSI. Quantification analysis of the mtDNA in blastomeres was performed by real-time PCR at the 7-8 cell stage of the cleaved embryos at 72 h after oocyte retrieval. We calculated the cytoplasmic volume of the blastomeres. Our studies showed a significantly lower mtDNA copy number in unfertilized oocytes and uncleaved embryos in women who were older than 40 years of age (p < 0.05). The larger ooplasmic volume was also associated with earlier and more rapid cleavage (p < 0.05). The ooplasmic volume was also significantly larger in the group achieving pregnancy. We found a significant positive correlation between blastomere volume and the number of mtDNA copies (r = 0.76, p < 0.01, from Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient). We have shown that blastomere volume is directly proportional to the number of mtDNA copies. Therefore, larger cytoplasmic volume, with earlier cleavage speed, implies more mtDNA copies. Evaluation of mtDNA quantification and the measurement of ooplasmic and blastomere volume may be useful for selection of high quality embryo and pregnancy outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据