Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Hondón de las Nieves, Spain

Allegra A.,Reproductive Medicine Unit | Marino A.,Reproductive Medicine Unit | Peregrin P.C.,Reproduction Unit | Lama A.,Reproductive Medicine Unit | And 6 more authors.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online | Year: 2012

The objective of this study was to identify the endometrial gene expression profile in receptive phase, which could represent a useful prognostic tool for selecting IVF patients. Endometrial expression of 47 selected genes biopsied during the window of implantation in natural cycles was compared between patients who achieved a successful pregnancy spontaneously or after subsequent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles and patients who did not achieve a pregnancy after at least two failed ICSI cycles. The comparative analysis showed significantly different levels of expression in 19 genes, five implicated in apoptosis (CASP8, FADD, CASP10, APAF1, ANXA4), three in immunity (LIF, SPP1, C4BPA), five in transcriptional activity (MSX1, HOXA10, MSX2, HOXA11, GATA2), two in lipid metabolism (LEPR, APOD) and four in oxidative metabolism (AOX1, ALDH1A3, GPX3, NNMT). The evidence for these genes being differently expressed could represent the starting point of identifying the ideal receptive endometrial gene expression profile, which could be used in the future as a prognostic tool for IVF patients. Gene expression analysis technology has opened new important perspectives on the study of the physiological processes of different tissues and organs. Specifically for the endometrium, it would be really interesting to find out an endometrial gene expression profile of receptive phase, which could be used in future as a useful prognostic tool for selecting IVF patients. To achieve this aim, the objective of the present paper was the comparison of endometrial expression in natural cycles of 47 selected genes between the biopsies of patients who achieved a successful pregnancy, either spontaneously or after subsequent ICSI cycles, and those of patients who did not achieve a pregnancy after at least two failed ICSI cycles. The comparative analysis showed a significant different expression in 19 genes: five implicated in programmed cell death, known as apoptosis (CASP8, FADD, CASP10, APAF1, ANXA4), three in immunity (LIF, SPP1, C4BPA), five in transcriptional activity (MSX1, HOXA10, MSX2, HOXA11, GATA2), two in lipid metabolism (LEPR, APOD) and four in oxidative metabolism (AOX1, ALDH1A3, GPX3, NNMT). The evidence of these genes being differently expressed could represent the starting point of identifying the ideal receptive endometrial gene expression profile which could be used in the future as a prognostic tool for IVF patients. © 2012, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source


Castilla J.A.,Reproduction Unit | Zamora S.,Reproduction Unit | Gonzalvo M.C.,Reproduction Unit | Luna Del Castillo J.D.,University of Granada | And 4 more authors.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online | Year: 2010

The present study is based on a PubMed search and compares the clinical validity of classical semen parameters (CSP) and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) in different clinical contexts. The PubMed database was searched using keywords on the sperm diagnostic test for pregnancy in three clinical scenarios: (i) couples attempting to conceive; (ii) couples who had been attempting to conceive for 12 months without success; and (iii) couples treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI). There was a considerable heterogeneity among the studies included. For couples attempting to conceive following a SCSA that produced an abnormal result, the likelihood of male factor infertility ranged from a pre-test value of 7.5% to a post-test value of 32.1% [95% confidence interval (Cl) 15.7-54.5], while after CSP with an abnormal result, the post-test probability was 17.3% (95% Cl 11.8-24.5). For a pre-test prevalence of male factor infertility of 50%, the post-test probability of male factor infertility after an abnormal test is very similar for both SCSA and CSP. In couples treated with IUI, the clinical validity of SCSA is higher than that of sperm morphology alone, but not enough to introduce SCSA as a test in male infertility work-up. © 2009, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations