Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36464714›Full record

Trial reportJournal of ovarian research2022

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

Julie Barberet, Bastien Ducreux, Céline Bruno, Magali Guilleman, Raymond Simonot, Nicolas Lieury, Adrien Guilloteau, Déborah Bourc'his, Patricia Fauque

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of ovarian research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03570073 (Prospective Comparative Study of Two Manual and Automated Oocyte Vitrification Systems), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03570073 naunknown statusnot on this map

Prospective Comparative Study of Two Manual and Automated Oocyte Vitrification Systems: Randomization of Mature Oocytes in Vitro of In Vitro Fertilization Attempts With Micro-injection at the "Centre d'Assistance Médicale à la Procréation" of the Dijon University Hospital

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre Hospitalier Universitaire DijonRan2018 to 2020Enrolled45ConditionsAutomatic Vitrification, Manual VitrificationArmsManual vitrification, Vitrification with GaviTM system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bovine embryo productionAnimal reproduction · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Julie Barberet *Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté - Equipe Génétique des Anomalies du Développement (GAD) INSERM UMR1231, 2 Rue Angélique Ducoudray, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Bastien Ducreux *Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté - Equipe Génétique des Anomalies du Développement (GAD) INSERM UMR1231, 2 Rue Angélique Ducoudray, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Céline BrunoUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté - Equipe Génétique des Anomalies du Développement (GAD) INSERM UMR1231, 2 Rue Angélique Ducoudray, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Magali GuillemanUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté - Equipe Génétique des Anomalies du Développement (GAD) INSERM UMR1231, 2 Rue Angélique Ducoudray, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Raymond SimonotCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction - CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Nicolas LieuryCHU Dijon Bourgogne, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction - CECOS, 14 rue Gaffarel, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Adrien GuilloteauUSMR, Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Déborah Bourc'hisInstitut Curie, PSL University, CNRS, INSERM, 26 rue d'Ulm, F-75248, Paris, France.
Patricia FauqueUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté - Equipe Génétique des Anomalies du Développement (GAD) INSERM UMR1231, 2 Rue Angélique Ducoudray, F-21000, Dijon, France. patricia.fauque@chu-dijon.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndications 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.

resultsPost-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.

conclusionsOur 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 registrationNCT03570073.

Indexed as

TranscriptomeVitrificationGene Expression ProfilingHumansOocytesSiblingsAssisted reproductive technologyCryopreservationOocyteSingle-cell RNA-seqVitrification

Identifiers

PMID36464714
PMCPMC9720994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.