4.7 Article

Single-cell analysis of differences in transcriptomic profiles of oocytes and cumulus cells at GV, MI, MII stages from PCOS patients

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep39638

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81430026]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning [XBR2013094]
  3. Jiangsu Science and Technology Planning Project [BM2014052]
  4. National Key Research and Development Plan [2016YFC1000208]
  5. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [16JC1404700]
  6. Development and Reform Commission of HUNAN Province Plan [2060403]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common frequent endocrine disorder among women of reproductive age. Although assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) are used to address subfertility in PCOS women, their effectiveness is not clear. Our aim was to compare transcriptomic profiles of oocytes and cumulus cells (CCs) between women with and without PCOS, and assess the effectiveness of ARTs in treating PCOS patients. We collected oocytes and CCs from 16 patients with and without PCOS patients to categorize them into 6 groups according to oocyte nuclear maturation. Transcriptional gene expression of oocyte and CCs was determined via single-cell RNA sequencing. The ratio of fertilization and cleavage was higher in PCOS patients than in non-PCOS patients undergoing ARTs, and there was no difference in the number of high-quality embryos between the groups. Differentially expressed genes including PPP2R1A, PDGFRA, EGFR, GJA1, PTGS2, TNFAIP6, TGF-beta 1, CAV1, INHBB et al. were investigated as potential causes of PCOS oocytes and CCs disorder at early stages, but their expression returned to the normal level at the metaphase II (MII) stage via ARTs. In conclusion, ARTs can improve the quality of cumulus-oocyte complex (COC) and increase the ratio of fertilization and cleavage in PCOS women.

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

4.7
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