Embryo implantation: Biology, evaluation, and enhancement

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 274-279

  Koot, Yvonne E M ^a   Macklon, Nick S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

embryo; endometrium; implantation; receptivity

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; GLUCOCORTICOID; HEPARIN; MOLECULAR MARKER;

ANEUPLOIDY; BIOLOGY; CHROMOSOME; CORTICOSTEROID THERAPY; CULTURE MEDIUM; CURETTAGE; DECIDUALIZATION; EMBRYO (ANATOMY); ENDOMETRIUM; ENDOMETRIUM BIOPSY; EVALUATION; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENOMICS; HUMAN; HYSTEROSCOPY; IN VITRO STUDY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LIVE BIRTH; NIDATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PLOIDY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SCREENING; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERUS;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CULTURE MEDIA, CONDITIONED; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; ENDOMETRIUM; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC MARKERS; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TRANSCRIPTOME;

EID: 84880816169     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283630d94     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Koot YE, Teklenburg G, Salker MS, et al. Molecular aspects of implantation failure. Biochem Biophys Acta 2012; 1822:1943-1950.
2. Teklenburg G, Salker M, Heijnen C, et al. The molecular basis of recurrent pregnancy loss: impaired natural embryo selection. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16:886-895.
3. Teklenburg G, Salker M, Molokhia M, et al. Natural selection of human embryos: decidualizing endometrial stromal cells serve as sensors of embryo quality upon implantation. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10258.
4. Salker MS, Teklenburg G, Molokhlia M, et al. Natural selection of human embryos: impaired decidualization of endometrium disables embryo-maternal interactions and causes recurrent pregnancy loss. PLoS One 2012; 5:e10287.
5. Weimar CH, Kavelaars A, Brosens JJ, et al. Endometrial stromal cells of women with recurrent miscarriage fail to discriminate between high- and lowquality human embryos. PLoS One 2012; 7:e41424.
6. Tang CL, Zhao HB, Li MQ, et al. Focal adhesion kinase signaling is necessary for the Cyclosporin A-enhanced migration and invasion of human trophoblast cells. Placenta 2012; 33:704-711.
7. Mariee N, Tuckerman E, Ali A, et al. The observer and cycle-to-cycle variability in the measurement of uterine natural killer cells by immunohistochemistry. J Reprod Immunol 2012; 95:93-100.
8. Ramos-Medina R, Garcia-Segovia A, Leon JA, et al. New decision-tree model for defining the risk of reproductive failure. Am J Reprod Immunol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Herrero J, Meseguer M. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1030-1034.
10. Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98:1458-1463.
11. Munoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, et al. The type of GnRH analogue used during controlled ovarian stimulation influences early embryo developmental kinetics: a time-lapse study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
12. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reprod 2011; 26:2658-2671.
13. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly (dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:332-337.
14. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Noninvasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28:1115-1121.
15. Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:2649-2657.
16. Dal CM, Coticchio G, Mignini RM, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:474-480.
17. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, et al. Embryo incubation and selection in a timelapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1481-1489.
18. Vanneste E, Voet T, Le CC, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med 2009; 15:577-583.
19. Santos MA, Teklenburg G, Macklon NS, et al. The fate of the mosaic embryo: chromosomal constitution and development of Day 4, 5 and 8 human embryos. Hum Reprod 2010; 25:1916-1926.
20. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30:236-242.
21. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14:703-710.
22. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1700-1706.
23. Katz-Jaffe MG, Surrey ES, Minjarez DA, et al. Association of abnormal ovarian reserve parameters with a higher incidence of aneuploid blastocysts. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121:71-77.
24. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, et al. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1217-1222.
25. Voullaire L, Wilton L, McBain J, et al. Chromosome abnormalities identified by comparative genomic hybridization in embryos from women with repeated implantation failure. Mol Hum Reprod 2002; 8:1035-1041.
26. Scott RT Jr, Ferry K, Su J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:870-875.
27. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 17:454-466.
28. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5:24.
29. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1044-1048.
30. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using noninvasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26:477-485.
31. Leese HJ. Quiet please, do not disturb: a hypothesis of embryo metabolism and viability. Bioessays 2002; 24:845-849.
32. Baumann CG, Morris DG, Sreenan JM, Leese HJ. The quiet embryo hypothesis: molecular characteristics favoring viability. Mol Reprod Dev 2007; 74:1345-1353.
33. Katz-Jaffe MG, McReynolds S, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15:271-277.
34. McReynolds S, Vanderlinden L, Stevens J, et al. Lipocalin-1: a potential marker for noninvasive aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2011; 95:2631-2633.
35. Cortezzi SS, Cabral EC, Trevisan MG, et al. Prediction of embryo implantation potential by mass spectrometry fingerprinting of the culture medium. Reproduction 2013; 145:453-462.
36. Vergouw CG, Kieslinger DC, Kostelijk EH, et al. Day 3 embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near-infrared spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:2304-2311.
37. Ledee N, Gridelet V, Ravet S, et al. Impact of follicular G-CSF quantification on subsequent embryo transfer decisions: a proof of concept study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:406-413.
38. Garrido-Gomez T, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, et al. Profiling the gene signature of endometrial receptivity: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1078-1085.
39. Haouzi D, Dechaud H, Assou S, et al. Insights into human endometrial receptivity from transcriptomic and proteomic data. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24:23-34.
40. Evans GE, Martinez-Conejero JA, Phillipson GT, et al. Gene and protein expression signature of endometrial glandular and stromal compartments during the window of implantation. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:1365-1373.
41. Cheong Y, Boomsma C, Heijnen C, Macklon N. Uterine secretomics: a window on the maternal-embryo interface. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1093-1099.
42. Boomsma CM, Kavelaars A, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Cytokine profiling in endometrial secretions: a noninvasive window on endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18:85-94.
43. van der Gaast MH, Beier-Hellwig K, Fauser BC, et al. Endometrial secretion aspiration prior to embryo transfer does not reduce implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7:105-109.
44. Boomsma CM, Kavelaars A, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Endometrial secretion analysis identifies a cytokine profile predictive of pregnancy in IVF. Hum Reprod 2009; 24:1427-1435.
45. Hannan NJ, Pavia P, Meehan KL, et al. Analysis of fertility-related soluble mediators in human uterine fluid identifies VEGF as a key regulator of embryo implantation. Endocrinology 2011; 152:4948-4956.
46. Heng S, Hannan NJ, Rombauts LJ, et al. PC6 levels in uterine lavage are closely associated with uterine receptivity and significantly lower in a subgroup of women with unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:840-846.
47. Hannan NJ, Stephens AN, Rainczuk A, et al. 2D-DIGI analysis of the human endometrial secretome reveals differences between receptive and nonreceptive states in fertile and infertile women. J Proteome Res 2010; 9:6256-6264.
48. Scotchie JG, Fritz MA, Mocanu M, et al. Proteomic analysis of the luteal endometrial secretome. Reprod Sci 2009; 16:883-893.
49. Casado-Vela J, Rodriguez-Suarez E, Iloro I, et al. Comprehensive proteomic analysis of human endometrial fluid aspirate. J Proteome Res 2009; 8:4622-4632.
50. Garrido-Gomez T, Dominguez F, Lopez JA, et al. Modeling human endometrial decidualization from the interaction between proteome and secretome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96:706-716.
51. Haouzi D, Dechaud H, Assou S, et al. Transcriptome analysis reveals dialogues between human trophectoderm and endometrial cells during the implantation period. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:1440-1449.
52. Altmae S, Reimand J, Hovatta O, et al. Research resource: interactome of human embryo implantation - identification of gene expression pathways, regulation, and integrated regulatory networks. Mol Endocrinol 2012; 26: 203-217.
53. Boomsma CM, Keay SD, Macklon NS. Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6:CD005996.
54. Seshadri S, Sunkara SK, Khalaf Y, et al. Effect of heparin on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:572-584.
55. Dentali F, Ageno W, Rezoagli E, et al. Low-dose aspirin for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature. J Thromb Haemost 2012; 10:2075-2085.
56. Nastri CO, Teixeira DM, Martins WP. Endometrial injury in the menstrual cycle prior to assisted reproduction techniques to improve reproductive outcomes. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29:401-402.
57. Potdar N, Gelbaya T, Nardo LG. Endometrial injury to overcome recurrent embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:561-571.
58. Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, et al. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003; 79:1317-1322.
59. Narvekar SA, Gupta N, Shetty N, et al. Does local endometrial injury in the nontransfer cycle improve the IVF-ET outcome in the subsequent cycle in patients with previous unsuccessful IVF? A randomized controlled pilot study. J Hum Reprod Sci 2010; 3:15-19.