Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32778156›Full record

ReviewClinical epigenetics2020

What impact does oocyte vitrification have on epigenetics and gene expression?

Julie Barberet, Fatima Barry, Cécile Choux, Magali Guilleman, Sara Karoui, Raymond Simonot, Céline Bruno, Patricia Fauque

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epigenetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cryopreservation, cryoprotectants, and potential risk of epigenetic alteration.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie BarberetCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Fatima BarryCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Cécile ChouxGynécologie-Obstétrique, CHU Dijon Bourgogne, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Magali GuillemanCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Sara KarouiCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Raymond SimonotCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Céline BrunoCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France.
Patricia FauqueCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon Cedex, France. patricia.fauque@chu-dijon.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-9708-1710
CHU Dijon Bourgogne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have a moderate risk for a number of adverse events and conditions. The question whether this additional risk is associated with specific procedures used in ART or whether it is related to the intrinsic biological factors associated with infertility remains unresolved. One of the main hypotheses is that laboratory procedures could have an effect on the epigenome of gametes and embryos. This suspicion is linked to the fact that ART procedures occur precisely during the period when there are major changes in the organization of the epigenome. Oocyte freezing protocols are generally considered safe; however, some evidence suggests that vitrification may be associated with modifications of the epigenetic marks. In this manuscript, after describing the main changes that occur during epigenetic reprogramming, we will provide current information regarding the impact of oocyte vitrification on epigenetic regulation and the consequences on gene expression, both in animals and humans. Overall, the literature suggests that epigenetic and transcriptomic profiles are sensitive to the stress induced by oocyte vitrification, and it also underlines the need to improve our knowledge in this field.

Indexed as

OocytesReproductive Techniques, AssistedVitrificationAnimalsCryopreservationDNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticGene ExpressionHumansDNA methylationEpigeneticsGene expressionOocyteVitrification

Identifiers

PMID32778156
PMCPMC7418205
OpenAlexW3047995057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.