Cargando…

Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses

BACKGROUND: Indications of oocyte vitrification increased substantially over the last decades for clinical and ethical reasons. A semi-automated vitrification system was recently developed making each act of vitrification reproducible. In this study, we evaluated the efficiency of the semi-automated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barberet, Julie, Ducreux, Bastien, Bruno, Céline, Guilleman, Magali, Simonot, Raymond, Lieury, Nicolas, Guilloteau, Adrien, Bourc’his, Déborah, Fauque, Patricia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9720994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36464714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-022-01064-3
_version_ 1784843670066823168
author Barberet, Julie
Ducreux, Bastien
Bruno, Céline
Guilleman, Magali
Simonot, Raymond
Lieury, Nicolas
Guilloteau, Adrien
Bourc’his, Déborah
Fauque, Patricia
author_facet Barberet, Julie
Ducreux, Bastien
Bruno, Céline
Guilleman, Magali
Simonot, Raymond
Lieury, Nicolas
Guilloteau, Adrien
Bourc’his, Déborah
Fauque, Patricia
author_sort Barberet, Julie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Indications of oocyte vitrification increased substantially over the last decades for clinical and ethical reasons. A semi-automated vitrification system was recently developed making each act of vitrification reproducible. In this study, we evaluated the efficiency of the semi-automated technique of oocyte vitrification by survival rate, morphometric assessment and resistance to empty micro-injection gesture as compared with a manual method. Additionally, we intended to evaluate transcriptomic consequences of both techniques using single-cell RNA-seq technology. RESULTS: Post-warming survival rate, oocyte surfaces and resistance to empty micro-injection were comparable between semi-automated and manual vitrification groups. Both oocyte vitrification techniques showed limited differences in the resulting transcriptomic profile of sibling oocytes since only 5 differentially expressed genes were identified. Additionally, there was no difference in median transcript integrity number or percentage of mitochondrial DNA between the two groups. However, a total of 108 genes were differentially expressed between fresh and vitrified oocytes (FDR < 0.05) and showed over-represented of genes related to important cellular process. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide reassurance about the influence of semi-automation as compared with the manual vitrification method. Concerning oocyte vitrification itself, no tight common transcriptomic signature associated has been observed across studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03570073. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-022-01064-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9720994
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97209942022-12-06 Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses Barberet, Julie Ducreux, Bastien Bruno, Céline Guilleman, Magali Simonot, Raymond Lieury, Nicolas Guilloteau, Adrien Bourc’his, Déborah Fauque, Patricia J Ovarian Res Research BACKGROUND: Indications of oocyte vitrification increased substantially over the last decades for clinical and ethical reasons. A semi-automated vitrification system was recently developed making each act of vitrification reproducible. In this study, we evaluated the efficiency of the semi-automated technique of oocyte vitrification by survival rate, morphometric assessment and resistance to empty micro-injection gesture as compared with a manual method. Additionally, we intended to evaluate transcriptomic consequences of both techniques using single-cell RNA-seq technology. RESULTS: Post-warming survival rate, oocyte surfaces and resistance to empty micro-injection were comparable between semi-automated and manual vitrification groups. Both oocyte vitrification techniques showed limited differences in the resulting transcriptomic profile of sibling oocytes since only 5 differentially expressed genes were identified. Additionally, there was no difference in median transcript integrity number or percentage of mitochondrial DNA between the two groups. However, a total of 108 genes were differentially expressed between fresh and vitrified oocytes (FDR < 0.05) and showed over-represented of genes related to important cellular process. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide reassurance about the influence of semi-automation as compared with the manual vitrification method. Concerning oocyte vitrification itself, no tight common transcriptomic signature associated has been observed across studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03570073. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-022-01064-3. BioMed Central 2022-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9720994/ /pubmed/36464714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-022-01064-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Barberet, Julie
Ducreux, Bastien
Bruno, Céline
Guilleman, Magali
Simonot, Raymond
Lieury, Nicolas
Guilloteau, Adrien
Bourc’his, Déborah
Fauque, Patricia
Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title_full Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title_fullStr Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title_short Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
title_sort comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9720994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36464714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-022-01064-3
work_keys_str_mv AT barberetjulie comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT ducreuxbastien comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT brunoceline comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT guillemanmagali comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT simonotraymond comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT lieurynicolas comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT guilloteauadrien comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT bourchisdeborah comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses
AT fauquepatricia comparisonofoocytevitrificationusingasemiautomatedoramanualclosedsysteminhumansiblingssurvivalandtranscriptomicanalyses