4.7 Article

Oxygen consumption is a quality marker for human oocyte competence conditioned by ovarian stimulation regimens

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 618-U141

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.059

关键词

Oocyte; oxygen consumption; fertilization; implantation; gonadotropin stimulation

资金

  1. CDTI-EUREKA (Spanish Government and European Community)
  2. Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different ovarian stimulation protocols on oocyte respiration and to investigate the relationship between oocyte oxygen consumption and reproductive outcome. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: Infertility clinic in a university hospital. Patient(s): A total of 349 oocytes from 56 IVF treatment cycles in our oocyte donation program. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Average oocyte oxygen consumption rate in fmol/s. We correlated oxygen consumption values with ovarian stimulation features, fertilization, embryo quality on days 2 and 3, and implantation. Result(s): Differences in the measured oxygen consumption rates were found depending on which type of gonadotropins were used in the stimulation protocol. Higher consumption rates were found for oocytes that underwent normal fertilization compared with rates from nonfertilized or abnormal oocytes (odds ratio = 1.340; 95% confidence intervals = 1.037-1.732). Furthermore, higher oxygen consumption was observed for those oocytes which generated embryos that implanted compared with those that did not implant (6.21 +/- 0.849 fmol/s vs. 5.23 +/- 0.345 fmol/s. Conclusion(s): Measurement of oxygen consumption rates for individual oocytes before fertilization provides a noninvasive marker of oocyte quality and hence a quantitative assessment of the reproductive potential for the oocyte. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011;96:618-23. (C)2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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