Use of Both Cumulus Cells’ Transcriptomic Markers and Zona Pellucida Birefringence to Select Developmentally Competent Oocytes in Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selection of the best oocyte for subsequent steps of fertilization and embryo transfer was shown to be the crucial step in human infertility treatment procedure. Oocyte selection using morphological criteria mainly Zona pellucida (ZP) has been the gold standard method in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) clinics, but this selection approach has limitations in terms of accuracy, objectivity and constancy. Recent studies using OMICs-based approaches have allowed the identification of key molecular markers that quantitatively and non-invasively predict the oocyte quality for higher pregnancy rates and efficient infertility treatment. These biomarkers are a valuable reinforcement of the morphological selection criteria widely used in in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. In this context, this study was designed to investigate the relationship between transcriptomic predictors of oocyte quality found by our group and the conventional morphological parameters of oocyte quality mainly the ZP birefringence. RESULTS: Microarray data revealed that 48 and 27 differentially expressed candidate genes in cumulus cells (CCs) were respectively overexpressed and underexpressed in the ZGP (Zona Good Pregnant) versus ZBNP (Zona Bad Non Pregnant) groups. More than 70% of previously reported transcriptomic biomarkers of oocyte developmental competence were confirmed in this study. The analysis of possible association between ZP birefringence versus molecular markers approach showed an absence of correlation between them using the current set of markers. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested a new integrative approach that matches morphological and molecular approaches used to select developmentally competent oocytes able to lead to successful pregnancy and the delivery of healthy baby. For each ZP birefringence score, oocytes displayed a particular CCs' gene expression pattern. However, no correlations were found between the 7 gene biomarkers of oocyte developmental potential and the ZP birefringence score. Further studies using larger lists of candidate markers are required to identify suitable genes that are highly correlated with the morphological criteria, and therefore able to reinforce the accuracy of oocyte selection and the effectiveness of infertility treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".