4.5 Article

Oogonial Precursor Cell-Derived Autologous Mitochondria Injection to Improve Outcomes in Women With Multiple IVF Failures Due to Low Oocyte Quality: A Clinical Translation

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 1612-1617

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1933719115612137

关键词

oogonial precursor cells; mitochondria; embryo transfer; pregnancy; oocyte quality; IVF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mitochondrial dysfunction has been suggested as a major cause of age-induced decline in oocyte quality. In the past, donor oocyte cytoplasmic transfer showed some success but was abandoned due to the concerns with heteroplasmy. Recent studies indicated presence of oogonial precursor cells (OPCs) in the human ovary, which could be an autologous source of healthy mitochondria. We sought to investigate the clinical efficacy of OPC-derived autologous mitochondrial injection (AMI) to improve oocyte quality in women with multiple in vitro fertilization (IVF) failures. Methods: The OPCs were isolated from laparoscopically obtained ovarian cortical pieces by cell sorting using a monoclonal anti-vasa homolog (anti-DDX) antibody. They were then disrupted and mitochondria were isolated. Reconstituted mitochondria were injected into each oocyte during intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Paired comparisons were made between the first failed cycles and the post-AMI cycles. Results: Of the 15 women undergoing ovarian stimulation, 2 were canceled and 3 decided to pool oocytes for later AMI. In remaining 10 (mean age 34.7 +/- 4.1), AMI significantly improved fertilization rates (49.7 +/- 31.3 vs 78.3 +/- 18.9; P = .03) with a trend for better embryo grades (2.3 +/- 0.3 vs 3.1 +/- 0.7; P = .08). Four of 10 women conceived after single frozen embryo transfer and 3 after confirmation of diploidy via array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) (clinical pregnancy/embryo transfer = 4/10). Conclusion: These data show encouraging results for AMI in comparison to previous failed IVF cycles.

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

4.5
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