Personalized embryo transfer based on RNA sequencing endometrial receptivity test in repeated implantation failure patients: artificial cycle versus natural cycle

References

• Kumar N, Singh AK. Trends of male factor infertility, an important cause of infertility: a review of literature. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2015;8(4):1–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Firouzabadi RD, Davar R, Hojjat F, et al. Effect of sildenafil citrate on endometrial preparation and outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11(2):151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craciunas L, Gallos I, Chu J, et al. Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(2):202–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prapas Y, Prapas N, Jones EE, et al. The window for embryo transfer in oocyte donation cycles depends on the duration of progesterone therapy. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(3):720–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galliano D, Bellver J, Díaz-García C, et al. ART and uterine pathology: how relevant is the maternal side for implantation? Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(1):13–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teh W-T, McBain J, Rogers P. What is the contribution of embryo-endometrial asynchrony to implantation failure? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(11):1419–1430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastian-Leon P, Garrido N, Remohí J, et al. Asynchronous and pathological windows of implantation: two causes of recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(4):626–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Xiao L, Che HS, et al. Uterine peristalsis exerts control over fluid migration after mock embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(2):279–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Che HS, Xiao L, et al. Uterine peristalsis before embryo transfer affects the chance of clinical pregnancy in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1238–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):508–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):818–824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simón C, Gómez C, Cabanillas S, et al.; ERA-RCT Study Consortium Group. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(3):402–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He A, Zou Y, Wan C, et al. The role of transcriptomic biomarkers of endometrial receptivity in personalized embryo transfer for patients with repeated implantation failure. J Transl Med. 2021;19(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lédée N, Petitbarat M, Prat-Ellenberg L, et al. Endometrial immune profiling: a method to design personalized care in assisted reproductive medicine. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmäe S, Tamm-Rosenstein K, Esteban FJ, et al. Endometrial transcriptome analysis indicates superiority of natural over artificial cycles in recurrent implantation failure patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32(6):597–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang EM, Han JE, Kim YS, et al. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(4):369–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassab A, Sabatini L, Tozer A, et al. The correlation between basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels before embryo cryopreservation and the clinical outcome of frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1269–1275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agha-Hosseini M, Hashemi L, Aleyasin A, et al. Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a randomized prospective trial. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;15(1):12–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AEP, Kollen BJ, et al. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(5):458–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancke K, More S, Kreienberg R, et al. Patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer have similar live birth rates in spontaneous and artificial cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(5):403–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mensing L, Dahlberg ES, Bay B, et al. Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306(4):1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messaoudi S, Kasmi IEL, Bourdiec A, et al. 15 Years of transcriptomic analysis on endometrial receptivity: what have we learnt? Fertil Res Pract. 2019;5(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cha J, Sun X, Dey SK. Mechanisms of implantation: strategies for successful pregnancy. Nat Med. 2012;18(12):1754–1767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranguch S, Cheung-Flynn J, Daikoku T, et al. Cochaperone immunophilin FKBP52 is critical to uterine receptivity for embryo implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(40):14326–14331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Wolf IM, Chen H, et al. FK506-binding protein 52 is essential to uterine reproductive physiology controlled by the progesterone receptor a isoform. Mol Endocrinol. 2006;20(11):2682–2694.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang S, Lin H, Kong S, et al. Physiological and molecular determinants of embryo implantation. Mol Aspects Med. 2013;34(5):939–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawagoe J, Li Q, Mussi P, et al. Nuclear receptor coactivator-6 attenuates uterine estrogen sensitivity to permit embryo implantation. Dev Cell. 2012;23(4):858–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan Q, Yan G, Zhang C, et al. miR-21 reverses impaired decidualization through modulation of KLF12 and NR4A1 expression in human endometrial stromal cells. Biol Reprod. 2019;100(5):1395–1405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C, Sun H, Wang Z, et al. Increased Krüppel-like factor 12 impairs embryo attachment via downregulation of leukemia inhibitory factor in women with recurrent implantation failure. Cell Death Discov. 2018;4(1):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Mei F, Kong C, Wang Y, et al. MiR-133b improves decidualization of endometrial stromal cells by targeting KLF12 in recurrent implantation failure. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-771502/v1
   Google Scholar
• Surveyor GA, Gendler SJ, Pemberton L, et al. Expression and steroid hormonal control of Muc-1 in the mouse uterus. Endocrinology. 1995;136(8):3639–3647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Sun X, Li L, et al. Pinopodes, leukemia inhibitory factor, integrin-β3, and mucin-1 expression in the peri-implantation endometrium of women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(2):389–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen F, Yan C, Liu M, et al. Decreased expression of mucin-1 in endometriosis endometrium correlated with progesterone receptor B involved in infertility. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(2):439–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar