Endometrial transcriptome analysis indicates superiority of natural over artificial cycles in recurrent implantation failure patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer
2016 (English)In: Reproductive Biomedicine Online, ISSN 1472-6483, E-ISSN 1472-6491, Vol. 32, no 6, 597-613 p.Article in journal (Refereed) PublishedText
Little consensus has been reached on the best protocol for endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer (FET). It is not known how, and to what extent, hormone supplementation in artificial cycles influences endometrial preparation for embryo implantation at a molecular level, especially in patients who have experienced recurrent implantation failure. Transcriptome analysis of 15 endometrial biopsy samples at the time of embryo implantation was used to compare two different endometrial preparation protocols, natural versus artificial cycles, for FET in women who have experienced recurrent implantation failure compared with fertile women. IPA and DAVID were used for functional analyses of differentially expressed genes. The TRANSFAC database was used to identify oestrogen and progesterone response elements upstream of differentially expressed genes. Cluster analysis demonstrated that natural cycles are associated with a better endometrial receptivity transcriptome than artificial cycles. Artificial cycles seemed to have a stronger negative effect on expression of genes and pathways crucial for endometrial receptivity, including ESR2, FSHR, LEP, and several interleukins and matrix metalloproteinases. Significant overrepresentation of oestrogen response elements among the genes with deteriorated expression in artificial cycles (P < 0.001) was found; progesterone response elements predominated in genes with amended expression with artificial cycles (P = 0.0052).
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 32, no 6, 597-613 p.
artificial cycle, endometrial receptivity, frozen embryo transfer, hormone response elements, recurrent implantation failure, unexplained female infertility
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-299501DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.03.004ISI: 000377393600006PubMedID: 27090967OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-299501DiVA: diva2:949697
FunderEU, European Research Council, 329812EU, FP7, Seventh Framework Programme, EU41564;EU324509