The endometrial transcriptome of infertile women with and without implantation failure
Bich Ngoc Bui,Viktorija Kukushkina,Alvin Meltsov,Catharina Olsen,Nienke van Hoogenhuijze,Signe Altmäe,Femke Mol,Gijs Teklenburg,Jan‐Peter de Bruin,Dagmar Besselink,Linda Stevens Brentjens,Darina Obukhova,Masoud Zamani Esteki,Ron van Golde,Andrea Romano,Triin Laisk,Gaby Steba,Shari Mackens,Andres Salumets,Frank Broekmans
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14822
2024-03-23
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Abstract:No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women in either the short term and long term was found, but there may be differences in the extent to which the window of implantation is displaced. Introduction Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good‐quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short‐term or long‐term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). Material and methods Mid‐luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA‐sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]‐day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short‐term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long‐term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo‐timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). Results There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short‐term or long‐term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long‐term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non‐pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short‐term analysis. Conclusions No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced.
obstetrics & gynecology