4.1 Article

Relationship between apoptosis and survival molecules in human cumulus cells as markers of oocyte competence

期刊

ZYGOTE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 583-591

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0967199417000429

关键词

Apoptosis; Human cumulus cells; Molecular markers; Oocyte competence; Survival molecules

资金

  1. grant for fertility innovation: GFI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To select from a single patient the best oocytes able to reach the blastocyst stage, we searched for valuable markers for oocytes competence. We evaluated the DNA fragmentation index (DFI) and the level of some survival molecules, such as AKT, pAKT and pERK1/2, in individual cumulus cell-oocyte complexes (COC). The study included normo-responder women. The average age of the patients was 34.3. DFI in cumulus cells was evaluated using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) dUTP nick-end labelling (TUNEL) assay in situ. AKT, pAKT and pERK1/2 were measured by immunological assay and densitometric analysis of fluorescent signals using NIS-Elements BR 3.10 image software. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA SE/14.1. The study focused on 53 patients involved after informed consent. Out of 255 MII oocytes, 197 were fertilized and the derived embryos had the following evolution: 117 completed the development to blastocyst and were transferred to uterus; 57 were vitrified at the blastocyst stage; and 23 were arrested during in vitro culture at different stages of cleavage. We found a significant statistical difference between the DFI of cumulus cells of the arrested embryos and the transferred blastocysts (P = 0.004), confirming that DFI could be considered as a valuable marker of oocyte competence. In addition, the pAKT/DFI ratio was higher in cumulus cells of oocytes able to produce blastocysts, indicating that DFI is significantly lower when pAKT is higher (P = 0.043). This study demonstrates for the first time that the relationship between apoptosis and survival molecules can be used as a marker to select the best oocytes.

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

4.1
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