Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38997724›Full record

ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2024

Safety of embryo cryopreservation: insights from mid-term placental transcriptional changes.

Qin-Yu Luo, Si-Wei Zhang, Hai-Yan Wu, Jia-Ying Mo, Jia-En Yu, Ren-Ke He, Zhao-Ying Jiang, Ke-Jing Zhu, Xue-Ying Liu, Zhong-Liang Lin and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Qin-Yu Luo *Key Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Si-Wei Zhang *Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hai-Yan WuKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Jia-Ying MoInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Jia-En YuKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Ren-Ke HeInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Zhao-Ying JiangInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Ke-Jing ZhuInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Xue-Ying LiuInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Zhong-Liang LinInternational Institutes of Medicine, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Jian-Zhong ShengKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Yu ZhangObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. zhang_yu_sfy@fudan.edu.cn.
Yan-Ting WuObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. yanting_wu@163.com.
He-Feng HuangKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. huanghefg@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, with benefits from the continuous improvement of clinical technology and the advantage of fertility preservation, the application of embryo cryopreservation has been growing rapidly worldwide. However, amidst this growth, concerns about its safety persist. Numerous studies have highlighted the elevated risk of perinatal complications linked to frozen embryo transfer (FET), such as large for gestational age (LGA) and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Thus, it is imperative to explore the potential risk of embryo cryopreservation and its related mechanisms.

methodsGiven the strict ethical constraints on clinical samples, we employed mouse models in this study. Three experimental groups were established: the naturally conceived (NC) group, the fresh embryo transfer (Fresh-ET) group, and the FET group. Blastocyst formation rates and implantation rates were calculated post-embryo cryopreservation. The impact of FET on fetal growth was evaluated upon fetal and placental weight. Placental RNA-seq was conducted, encompassing comprehensive analyses of various comparisons (Fresh-ET vs. NC, FET vs. NC, and FET vs. Fresh-ET).

resultsReduced rates of blastocyst formation and implantation were observed post-embryo cryopreservation. Fresh-ET resulted in a significant decrease in fetal weight compared to NC group, whereas FET reversed this decline. RNA-seq analysis indicated that the majority of the expression changes in FET were inherited from Fresh-ET, and alterations solely attributed to embryo cryopreservation were moderate. Unexpectedly, certain genes that showed alterations in Fresh-ET tended to be restored in FET. Further analysis suggested that this regression may underlie the improvement of fetal growth restriction in FET. The expression of imprinted genes was disrupted in both FET and Fresh-ET groups.

conclusionBased on our experimental data on mouse models, the impact of embryo cryopreservation is less pronounced than other in vitro manipulations in Fresh-ET. However, the impairment of the embryonic developmental potential and the gene alterations in placenta still suggested it to be a risky operation.

Indexed as

CryopreservationEmbryo TransferPlacentaAnimalsBlastocystEmbryo ImplantationEmbryo, MammalianFemaleFetal DevelopmentMicePregnancyEmbryo cryopreservationFetal growthFrozen embryo transferImprinting genePlacentaRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID38997724
PMCPMC11241961

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.