ArticleClinical and translational medicine2026
Single-cell transcriptomic analysis reveals subtle fluctuations of oocyte cryopreservation on mouse early embryo development.
Article in Clinical and translational medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOocyte cryopreservation is widely used in assisted reproductive technology, but its effects on embryonic development remain a concern. This study aimed to determine whether oocyte cryopreservation induces transcriptional alterations at the early cleavage and blastocyst stages.
methodsWe performed single-cell RNA sequencing on mouse Metaphase II oocyte and embryos at early/late 1 cell, early/late 2 cell, morula and blastocyst stages derived from cryopreserved (cryo) and fresh (fresh) oocytes. Transcriptomic profiles were compared between the two groups.
resultsGlobal transcriptomes were highly similar between cryo and fresh blastocysts. Oocyte cryopreservation did not alter the sex ratio or the developmental progression through preimplantation development. In blastocysts, cryopreservation affected only a few individual genes. In both male and female blastocysts, although oocyte cryopreservation increased the proportion of low Xist-expressing cells, it did not disrupt X-linked gene dosage. In the inner cell mass (ICM) of blastocysts, a negative correlation between X-linked gene expression and cell cycle progression was identified, and this negative correlation was more pronounced in trophectoderm (TE) cells. Overall, this stage-dependent coordination remained unperturbed by cryopreservation. CellChat analysis revealed that the signalling interaction strength between ICM and TE also showed no significant changes in the cryo group.
conclusionsOocyte cryopreservation does not severely disrupt overall transcriptional integrity, developmental potency and X-chromosome dosage compensation of embryos, but it may cause subtle molecular changes. These findings highlight the need for continued refinement of cryopreservation methods and further investigation into the sub-acute safety of assisted reproductive technology procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.