1,423
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Recurrent implantation failure versus recurrent implantation success: a preliminary study at proteomic level

ORCID Icon, , & ORCID Icon
Article: 2217261 | Received 05 May 2022, Accepted 18 May 2023, Published online: 30 May 2023

References

  • Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, et al. Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(1):1–9.
  • Haouzi D, Dechaud H, Assou S, et al. Insights into human endometrial receptivity from transcriptomic and proteomic data. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(1):23–34.
  • Polanski LT, Baumgarten M. Endometrial receptivity testing and therapy in assisted reproductive treatment. Semin Reprod Med. 2021;39(1-02):27–33.
  • Ghosh S, Chattopadhyay R, Goswami S, et al. Recurrent implantation success in consecutive embryo transfer cycles: a unique case report. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2013;59(5):285–286.
  • RoyChoudhury S, Singh A, Gupta NJ, et al. Repeated implantation failure versus repeated implantation success discrimination at a metabolomic level. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1265–1274.
  • Wang C, Feng Y, Zhou W-J, et al. Screening and identification of endometrial proteins as novel potential biomarkers for repeated implantation failure. Peer J. 2021;9:e11009.
  • Brosens JJ, Hodgetts A, Feroze-Zaidi F, et al. Proteomic analysis of endometrium from fertile and infertile patients suggests a role for apolipoprotein A-I in embryo implantation failure and endometriosis. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(4):273–285.
  • Evans J, Hutchison J, Salamonsen LA, et al. Proteomic insights into endometrial receptivity and embryo-endometrial epithelium interaction for implantation; critical determinants of fertility. Proteomics. 2020;20(1):e1900250.
  • Pérez-Debén S, Bellver J, Alamá P, et al. iTRAQ comparison of proteomic profiles of endometrial receptivity. J Proteomics. 2019;203:103381.
  • Garrido-Gómez T, Quiñonero A, Antúnez O, et al. Deciphering the proteomic signature of human endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1957–1967.
  • Guo X, Li TC, Chen X. X: the endometrial proteomic profile around the time of embryo implantation. Biol Reprod. 2021;104(1):11–26.
  • Christoforou AL, Lilley KS. Isobaric tagging approaches in quantitative proteomics: the ups and downs. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012;404(4):1029–1037.
  • Hernández-Vargas P, Muñoz M, Domínguez F. Identifying biomarkers for predicting successful embryo implantation: applying single to multi-OMICs to improve reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(2):264–301.
  • Hannan NJ, Stephens AN, Rainczuk A, et al. 2D-DiGE analysis of the human endometrial secretome reveals differences between receptive and nonreceptive states in fertile and infertile women. J Proteome Res. 2010;9(12):6256–6264.
  • Domínguez F, Garrido-Gómez T, López JA, et al. Simón. C: proteomic analysis of the human receptive versus non-receptive endometrium using differential in-gel electrophoresis and MALDI-MS unveils stathmin I and annexin A2 as differentially regulated. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(10):2607–2617.
  • Li J, Tan Z, Li M, et al. Proteomic analysis of endometrium in fertile women during the prereceptive and receptive phases after luteinizing hormone surge. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):1161–1163.
  • DeSouza L, Diehl G, Yang ECC, et al. Proteomic analysis of the proliferative and secretory phase of the human endometrium: protein identification and differential protein expression. Proteomics. 2005;5(1):270–281.
  • Parmar T, Gadkar-Sable S, Savardekar L, et al. Protein profiling of human endometrial tissues in the midsecretory and proliferative phases of the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):1091–1103.
  • Chen JIC, Hannan NJ, Mak Y, et al. Proteomic characterization of midproliferative and midsecretory human endometrium. J Proteome Res. 2009;8(4):2032–2044.
  • Li J, Tan Z, Li MT, et al. Z: study of altered expression of annexin IV and human endometrial receptivity. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2006;41:803–805.
  • Dhaenens L, Lierman S, De Clerck L, et al. Endometrial stromal cell proteome mapping in repeated implantation failure and recurrent pregnancy loss cases and fertile women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(3):442–454.
  • Azkargorta M, Escobes I, Iloro I, et al. Matorras. R: differential proteomic analysis of endometrial fluid suggests increased inflammation and impaired glucose metabolism in non-implantative IVF cycles and pinpoints PYGB as a putative implantationn marker. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(10):1898–1906.
  • Kasvandik S, Saarma M, Kaart T, et al. Uterine fluid proteins for minimally invasive assessment of endometrial receptivity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;105(1):gz019.
  • Giacomini E, Scotti GM, Vanni VS, et al. Global transcriptomic changes occur in uterine fluid-derived extracellular vesicles during the endometrial window for embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(8):2249–2274.
  • Rehman I, Evans CA, Glen A, et al. iTRAQ identification of candidate serun biomarkers associated with metastatic progression of human prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30885.
  • Achache H, Revel A. Endometrial receptivity markers, the journal to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):731–746.
  • Meng Y, Guo Y, Qian Y, et al. Effect of GnRH antagonist on endometrial protein profiles in the window of implantation. Proteomics. 2014;14(20):2350–2359.