4.4 Article

Aging endometrium in young women: molecular classification of endometrial aging-based markers in women younger than 35 years with recurrent implantation failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 2143-2151

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02578-x

Keywords

Premature endometrial aging; Fertility aging; Recurrent implantation failure; Assisted reproductive technology; Endometrial receptivity

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871214]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study revealed the presence of premature endometrial aging in young women with recurrent implantation failure, which is associated with poor reproductive outcomes. Analysis of gene expression patterns categorized the women into two clusters, with cluster 2 showing worse endometrial receptivity.
Background To explore the differences between a population with premature endometrial aging and a population with normal endometrial status in young women with recurrent implantation failure (<35 years). Methods Systematic analysis of the endometrium transcriptome of 274 RIF women. The NMF algorithm was used for classification based on endometrial-specific aging markers in CellAge, and the endometrial receptivity, gene expression patterns, and clinical data were compared between the classifications. Results Two hundred forty-five young RIF women could be divided into two clusters, in which the aging gene expression pattern of cluster 2 was closer to the reference cluster. Cluster 1 was characterized by high immune activity, while cluster 2 was characterized by high metabolic activity. Combined with clinical data, cluster 2 was worse than cluster 1 in window of implantation deviation rate and endometrial receptivity. Conclusion Premature aging of the endometrium exists in young women with RIF, and premature aging of the endometrium was associated with poor reproductive outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available