4.6 Article

Differential gene expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic indicator of embryo viability: a microarray analysis

期刊

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 157-168

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gam088

关键词

assisted reproductive technology; early cleavage; gene expression; cumulus cells; microarray

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Besides the established selection criteria based on embryo morphology and blastomere number, new parameters for embryo viability are needed to improve the clinical outcome of IVF and more particular of elective single-embryo transfer. Genome-wide gene expression in cumulus cells was studied, since these cells surround the oocyte inside the follicle and therefore possibly reflect oocyte developmental potential. Early cleavage (EC) was chosen as a parameter for embryo viability. Gene expression in cumulus cells from eight oocytes resulting in an EC embryo (EC-CC; n = 8) and from eight oocytes resulting in a non-EC (NEC) embryo (NEC-CC; n = 8) was analysed using microarrays (n = 16). A total of 611 genes were differentially expressed (P < 0.01), mainly involved in cell cycle, angiogenesis, apoptosis, epidermal growth factor, fibroblast growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor signalling, general vesicle transport and chemokine and cytokine signalling. Of the 25 selected differentially expressed genes analysed by quantitative real-time PCR 15 (60%) genes could be validated in the original samples. Of these 8 (53%) could also be validated in 24 (12-EC-CC and 12 NEC-CC) extra independent samples. The most differentially expressed genes among these were CCND2, CXCR4, GPX3, CTNND1 DHCR7, DVL3, HSPB1 and TRIM28, which probably point to hypoxic conditions or a delayed oocyte maturation in NEC-CC samples. This opens up perspectives for new molecular embryo or oocyte selection parameters which might also be useful in countries where the selection has to be made at the oocyte stage before fertilization instead of at the embryonic stage.

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

4.6
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