AREG expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic marker of oocyte quality
https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2024-11-5-407-418
EDN: CTADEW
Abstract
Background. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) represent the most promising and successful methods of infertility treatment. A personalized approach may enhance its efficacy. One such approach is the development of reliable methods for assessing the quality and selection of embryos for transfer. The quality of the embryo is largely contingent upon the quality of the gametes involved in fertilization; thus, the development of non-invasive methods to assess oocyte quality represents a crucial step in the advancement of personalized ART. It is proposed that molecular and biological characterization of cumulus cells can be utilized to assess oocyte quality and predict the success of implantation of transferred embryos. The aim of the study was to evaluate the expression levels of potential oocyte quality marker genes (AREG, STAR, PTGS2, HAS2 and SCD5) in cumulus cells from healthy donors and patients with primary and secondary infertility. Materials and Methods. Nine donors and 19 patients were enrolled in the study. RNA was isolated from cumulus cells obtained during oocyte preparation for fertilization, and cDNA was synthesized. The cDNA was used as a matrix for real-time PCR with primers for the above-mentioned genes of interest. Results. Significant difference in AREG gene expression was observed between patients with successful (i.e. ended with birth) outcome and with IVF failure. No difference was found for the STAR, HAS2, PTGS2 and SCD5 genes. Conclusion. The method of assessing the expression level of marker genes in cumulus cells by real-time PCR shows considerable promise for the assessment of oocyte quality. The AREG gene is a potential candidate for use as a marker of oocyte quality.
Supporting agencies: This work was financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Grantee № 24-24-00533).
About the Authors
E. O. Bashendjieva
Institute of Cytology of the Russian Academy of Science
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ekaterina O. Bashendjieva, senior research assistant, laboratory of the non-coding DNA study
Tikhoretsky ave., 4, Saint Petersburg, 194064
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
E. A. Barashkova
Skyfert Assisted Reproductive Technologies Clinic
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ekaterina A. Barashkova, Obstetrician-gynecologist-
reproductologist
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. A. Tatishcheva
Skyfert Assisted Reproductive Technologies Clinic
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Julia A. Tatishcheva, Ph.D., embryologist, head of the embryology laboratory
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
A. S. Kalugina
Skyfert Assisted Reproductive Technologies Clinic ; Academician I. P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Alla S. Kalugina, Doctor of Medical Sciences, obstetrician-gynecologist-reproductologist, Professor of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatology of the Academician I. P. Pavlov; General Director
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
N. I. Enukashvily
Institute of Cytology of the Russian Academy of Science
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Natella I. Enukashvily, PhD., Head of the Laboratory of the non-coding DNA study
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, Fertil Steril. 2017;108:393–406. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005.
2. Njagi P, Groot W, Arsenijevic J, et al. Financial costs of assisted reproductive technology for patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Open. 2023; 2: hoad007. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoad007.
3. Adamian LV, Serov VN, Korsak VS, et al. Clinical recommendations: Assisted reproductive technologies and insemination. 2019. In Russian
4. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999; 11:3:307–11. DOI: 10.1097/00001703-199906000-00013.
5. Lemseffer Y, Terret ME, Campillo C, et al. Methods for Assessing Oocyte Quality: A Review of Literature. Biomedicines. 2022; 10:9:4–11. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10092184.
6. Sciorio R, Miranian D, Smith GD. Non-invasive oocyte quality assessment. Biol Reprod. 2022; 106:2:274– 90. DOI: 10.1093/biolre/ioac009.
7. Shurygina OV, Bachurin AV, Bicheva NK, et al. Evaluation of oocytes and embryos in the ART laboratory. Methodological recommendations of the Russian Association of Human Reproduction. 2021. In Russian
8. Kokkali G, Coticchio G, Bronet F, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 3: hoaa020. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa020.
9. Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: Shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 20:3:234–41. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282fe723d.
10. Brower PT, Schultz RM. Intercellular communication between granulosa cells and mouse oocytes: Existence and possible nutritional role during oocyte growth. Dev Biol. 1982; 90:1:144–53. DOI: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90219-6.
11. Uyar A, Torrealday S, Seli E. Cumulus and granulosa cell markers of oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99:4: 979–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.129.
12. Tanghe S, Van Soom A, Nauwynck H, et al. Minireview: Functions of the cumulus oophorus during oocyte maturation, ovulation, and fertilization. Mol Reprod Dev. 2002;61:3:414–24. DOI: 10.1002/mrd.10102.
13. Feuerstein P, Cadoret V, Dalbies-Tran R, et al. Gene expression in human cumulus cells: One approach to oocyte competence. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:3069–77. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem336.
14. Fritzsche H, Michelmann HW, Siebzehnrübl, et al. Interactions between oocyte and surrounding cumulus cells influence the results of assisted reproduction. J Fur Reproduktionsmedizin Und Endokrinol. 2006; 3:373–8.
15. Feuerstein P, Puard V, Chevalier C, et al. Genomic assessment of human cumulus cell marker genes as predictors of oocyte developmental competence: Impact of various experimental factors. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e40449. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040449.
16. Ma Y, Jin J, Tong X, et al. ADAMTS1 and HSPG2 mRNA levels in cumulus cells are related to human oocyte quality and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020; 37:3: 657–67. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01659-8.
17. McKenzie LJ, Pangas SA, Carson SA, et al. Human cumulus granulosa cell gene expression: A predictor of fertilization and embryo selection in women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19:12:2869–74. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh535.
18. Kotova AV, Lobov AA, Dombrovskaya JA, et al. Comparative analysis of dental pulp and periodontal stem cells: Differences in morphology, functionality, osteogenic differentiation and proteome. Biomedicines. 2021; 9:11:1– 26. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9111606.
19. Ajith A, Portik-Dobos V, Nguyen-Lefebvre AT, et al. HLA-G dimer targets Granzyme B pathway to prolong human renal allograft survival. FASEB J. 2019; 33:4:5220– 36. DOI: 10.1096/fj.201802017R.
20. Mamo S, Gal AB, Polgar Z, et al. Expression profiles of the pluripotency marker gene POU5F1 and validation of reference genes in rabbit oocytes and preimplantation stage embryos. BMC Mol Biol. 2008; 9:1–13. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2199-9-67.
21. Assidi M, Dufort I, Ali A, et al. Identification of potential markers of oocyte competence expressed in bovine cumulus cells matured with follicle-stimulating hormone and/or phorbol myristate acetate in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2008; 79:2:209–22. DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.108.067686.
22. Rogers-Broadway KR, Karteris E. Amplification efficiency and thermal stability of qPCR instrumentation: Current landscape and future perspectives. Exp Ther Med. 2015; 10:4:1261–4. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2712.
23. Safronova NA, Kalinina EA, Donnikov AE, et al. Association of cumulus cell gene expression with embryological indicators in assisted reproductive technology programs. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) = Obstetrics and gynecology. 2016; 7:60–66. In Russian DOI: 10.18565/aig.2016.7.60-66.
24. Sirait B, Wiweko B, Jusuf AA, et al. Oocyte Competence Biomarkers Associated With Oocyte Maturation: A Review. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021; 9:710292. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.710292.
25. Haug LM, Wilson RC, Gaustad AH, et al. Cumulus Cell and Oocyte Gene Expression in Prepubertal Gilts and Sows Identifies Cumulus Cells as a Prime Informative Parameter of Oocyte Quality. Biology (Basel). 2023; 12:12:1484. DOI: 10.3390/biology12121484.
26. Choi Y, Wilson K, Hannon PR, et al. Coordinated regulation among progesterone, prostaglandins, and egflike factors in human ovulatory follicles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 102:6: 1971–82. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2016-3153.
27. Wathlet S, Adriaenssens T, Segers I, et al. Cumulus cell gene expression predicts better cleavage-stage embryo or blastocyst development and pregnancy for ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26:5: 1035–51. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der036.
28. Faizal AM, Elias MH, Jin NM, et al. Unravelling the role of HAS2, GREM1, and PTGS2 gene expression in cumulus cells: implications for human oocyte development competency — a systematic review and integrated bioinformatic analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15: 1274376. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1274376.
29. Sugimura S, Ritter LJ, Sutton-McDowall ML, et al. Amphiregulin co-operates with bone morphogenetic protein 15 to increase bovine oocyte developmental competence: Effects on gap junction-mediated metabolite supply. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014; 20:6: 499–513. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gau013.
Review
For citations:
Bashendjieva E.O., Barashkova E.A., Tatishcheva J.A., Kalugina A.S., Enukashvily N.I. AREG expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic marker of oocyte quality. Translational Medicine. 2024;11(5):407-418. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2024-11-5-407-418. EDN: CTADEW
Views:
226
Email this article 