A randomized controlled trial of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in Iranian infertile couples: oocyte gene expression

Fatemeh Sadat Hoseini, Seyed Mohammad Hossein Noori Mugahi, Firoozeh Akbari-Asbagh, Poopak Eftekhari-Yazdi, Behrouz Aflatoonian, Seyed Hamid Aghaee-Bakhtiari, Reza Aflatoonian, Nasser Salsabili, Fatemeh Sadat Hoseini, Seyed Mohammad Hossein Noori Mugahi, Firoozeh Akbari-Asbagh, Poopak Eftekhari-Yazdi, Behrouz Aflatoonian, Seyed Hamid Aghaee-Bakhtiari, Reza Aflatoonian, Nasser Salsabili

Abstract

Background: The main objective of the present work was to compare the effects of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) on the gene expression profiles of oocytes obtained from Iranian infertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods: Fifty infertile couples who underwent IVF between June 2012 and November 2013 at the Infertility Center of Tehran Women General Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, were included in this study. We included women that had undergone IVF treatment because of male factor, tubal factor, or unexplained infertility. The women randomly underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with either the GnRH-a (n = 26) or the GnRH-ant (n = 24). We obtained 50 germinal vesicle (GV) oocytes donated by women in each group. After the sampling, pool of 50 GV oocytes for each group was separately analyzed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

Result: The expression levels of Adenosine triphosphatase 6 (ATPase 6), Bone morphogenetic protein 15 (BMP15), and Neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) genes were significantly upregulated in the GnRH-ant group compared to the GnRH-a group, with the fold change of 3.990 (SD ± 1.325), 6.274 (SD ± 1.542), and 2.156 (SD ± 1.443), respectively, (P < 0.001). Growth differentiation factor 9 (GDF9) mRNA did not have any expression in the GnRH-a group; however, GDF9 mRNA was expressed in the GnRH-ant group. Finally, it was found that the genes involved in the DNA repairing and cell cycle checkpoint did not have any expression in either group.

Conclusion: The present study showed, for the first time, the expression levels of genes involved in the cytoplasmic maturity (BMP15, GDF9), adenosine triphosphate production (ATPase 6), and antiapoptotic process (NAIP), in human GV oocytes were significantly higher in the GnRH-anta group than in the GnRH-a group in COS. Higher expression level of these genes when GnRH-ant protocol is applied, this protocol seems to be a more appropriate choice for women with poly cystic ovarian syndrome, because it can probably improve the expression of the aforementioned genes.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials: IRCT 2014031112307 N3.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of the gene expression analysis with REST when using β.actin as the reference gene. Fold change (Y axis) represents the relative expression of ATPase 6, BMP15, NAIP mRNA in the pooled GV oocytes of the GnRH-ant protocol group (as tested group) versus the pooled GV oocytes of the GnRH-a long protocol group (as control group). ATPase 6, BMP15, and NAIP significantly were upregulated in GnRH-ant group in compared to GnRH-a group with the fold change of 3.990 (SD ± 1.325), 6.274 (SD ± 1.542), and 2.156 (SD ± 1.443), respectively, *** P < 0.001. Agonist protocol group □. Antagonist protocol group ■.

References

    1. Marci R, Graziano A, Lo Monte G, Piva I, Soave I, Marra E, Lisi F, Moscarini M, Caserta D. GnRH antagonists in assisted reproductive techniques: a review on the Italian experience. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:853–873.
    1. Nardo LG, Bosch E, Lambalk CB, Gelbaya TA. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens: a review of the available evidence for clinical practice. On behalf of the British Fertility Society P&P Committee. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2013;16:144–150. doi: 10.3109/14647273.2013.795385.
    1. Johnston-MacAnanny EB, DiLuigi AJ, Engmann LL, Maier DB, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC. Selection of first in vitro fertilization cycle stimulation protocol for good prognosis patients: gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist versus agonist protocols. J Reprod Med. 2011;56:12–16.
    1. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, Abou-Setta AM. GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:435–435. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr004.
    1. Orvieto R, Patrizio P. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: An ongoing debate. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:4–8. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001.
    1. Devjak R, Fon Tacer K, Juvan P, Virant Klun I, Rozman D, Vrtacnik Bokal E. Cumulus cells gene expression profiling in terms of oocyte maturity in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist. PLoS One. 2012;7:e47106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047106.
    1. Kaya A, Atabekoglu CS, Kahraman K, Taskin S, Ozmen B, Berker B, Sonmezer M. Follicular fluid concentrations of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, VEGF, AMH, and inhibin-B in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164:167–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.06.010.
    1. Lavorato HL, Oliveira JB, Petersen CG, Vagnini L, Mauri AL, Cavagna M, Baruffi RL, Franco JG., Jr GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles with recombinant LH supplementation: DNA fragmentation and apoptosis in granulosa cells. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:61–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.014.
    1. Liu N, Ma Y, Li R, Jin H, Li M, Huang X, Feng HL, Qiao J. Comparison of follicular fluid amphiregulin and EGF concentrations in patients undergoing IVF with different stimulation protocols. Endocrine. 2012;42:708–716. doi: 10.1007/s12020-012-9706-z.
    1. Gasca S, Pellestor F, Assou S, Loup V, Anahory T, Dechaud H, De Vos J, Hamamah S. Identifying new human oocyte marker genes: a microarray approach. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:175–183. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60785-7.
    1. Kahraman K, Berker B, Atabekoglu CS, Sonmezer M, Cetinkaya E, Aytac R, Satiroglu H. Microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare-up protocol versus multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection–embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2437–2444. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.057.
    1. Roberto M, Donatella C, Vincenza D, Carla T, Antonio P, Massimo M. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;11:189–193. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60957-1.
    1. Ye H, Huang G-n, Zeng P-h, Pei L. IVF/ICSI outcomes between cycles with luteal estradiol (E2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol and standard long GnRH agonist protocol: a prospective and randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:105–111. doi: 10.1007/s10815-009-9300-3.
    1. Pfaffl MW, Horgan GW, Dempfle L. Relative expression software tool (REST©) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30:e36–e36. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.9.e36.
    1. Luna M, Vela G, McDonald CA, Copperman AB. Results with GnRH antagonist protocols are equivalent to GnRH agonist protocols in comparable patient populations. J Reprod Med. 2012;57:123–128.
    1. Mekaru K, Yagi C, Asato K, Masamoto H, Sakumoto K, Aoki Y. Comparison between the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples. Reprod Med Biol. 2012;11:79–83. doi: 10.1007/s12522-011-0109-2.
    1. Munoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, Garrido N, Perez-Cano I, Meseguer M. The type of GnRH analogue used during controlled ovarian stimulation influences early embryo developmental kinetics: a time-lapse study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168:167–172. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.12.038.
    1. Nardo LG, Fleming R, Howles CM, Bosch E, Hamamah S, Ubaldi FM, Hugues JN, Balen AH, Nelson SM. Conventional ovarian stimulation no longer exists: Welcome to the age of individualized ovarian stimulation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23:141–148. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.008.
    1. Prapas Y, Petousis S, Dagklis T, Panagiotidis Y, Papatheodorou A, Assunta I, Prapas N. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor IVF responders: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166:43–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.008.
    1. Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2742–2749. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der240.
    1. Yang S, Chen XN, Qiao J, Liu P, Li R, Chen GA, Ma CH. Comparison of GnRH antagonist fixed protocol and GnRH agonists long protocol in infertile patients with normal ovarian reserve function in their first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2012;47:245–249.
    1. Cota A, Oliveira J, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Massaro FC, Silva L, Nicoletti A, Cavagna M, Baruffi R, Franco JG., Jr GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles: oocyte morphology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:33. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-10-33.
    1. Haouzi D, Assou S, Dechanet C, Anahory T, Dechaud H, De Vos J, Hamamah S. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization alters endometrial receptivity in humans: protocol effects. Biol Reprod. 2010;82:679–686. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.109.081299.
    1. Kuć P, Kuczyńska A, Topczewska M, Tadejko P, Kuczyński W. The dynamics of endometrial growth and the triple layer appearance in three different controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and their influence on IVF outcomes. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27:867–873.25. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2010.540602.
    1. Copperman AB, Benadiva C. Optimal usage of the GnRH antagonists: A review of the literature. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-11-20.
    1. Haas J, Ophir L, Barzilay E, Yerushalmi GM, Yung Y, Kedem A, Maman E, Hourvitz A. Gnrh agonist vs hCG for triggering of ovulation–differential effects on gene expression in human granulosa cells. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090359.
    1. Lee SH, Han JH, Cho SW, Cha KE, Park SE, Cha KY. Mitochondrial ATPase 6 gene expression in unfertilized oocytes and cleavage-stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1001–1005. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00486-6.
    1. Assou S, Anahory T, Pantesco V, Le Carrour T, Pellestor F, Klein B, Reyftmann L, Dechaud H, De Vos J, Hamamah S. The human cumulus–oocyte complex gene-expression profile. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1705–1719. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del065.
    1. Gode F, Gulekli B, Dogan E, Korhan P, Dogan S, Bige O, Cimrin D, Atabey N. Influence of follicular fluid GDF9 and BMP15 on embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2274–2278. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.045.
    1. Wei LN, Liang XY, Fang C, Zhang MF. Abnormal expression of growth differentiation factor 9 and bone morphogenetic protein 15 in stimulated oocytes during maturation from women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:464–468. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.036.
    1. Sancar A, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Unsal-Kaçmaz K, Linn S. Molecular mechanisms of mammalian DNA repair and the DNA damage checkpoints. Annu Rev Biochem. 2004;73:39–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073723.
    1. Verhagen AM, Coulson EJ, Vaux DL. Inhibitor of apoptosis proteins and their relatives: IAPs and other BIRPs. Genome Biol. 2001;2:3009.3001–3009.3010. doi: 10.1186/gb-2001-2-7-reviews3009.
    1. Beug ST, Cheung HH. LaCasse EC. Korneluk RG: Modulation of immune signalling by inhibitors of apoptosis. Trends in immunology; 2012.
    1. Smolewski P, Robak T. Inhibitors of apoptosis proteins (IAPs) as potential molecular targets for therapy of hematological malignancies. Curr Mol Med. 2011;11:633–649. doi: 10.2174/156652411797536723.
    1. Carlson BM, Brudon MC. Human embryology and developmental biology. St. Louis: Mosby; 1994.
    1. Lainas TG, Petsas GK, Zorzovilis IZ, Iliadis GS, Lainas GT, Cazlaris HE, Kolibianakis EM. Initiation of GnRH antagonist on Day 1 of stimulation as compared to the long agonist protocol in PCOS patients. A randomized controlled trial: effect on hormonal levels and follicular development. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1540–1546. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem033.
    1. Filicori M, Cognigni GE, Samara A, Melappioni S, Perri T, Cantelli B, Parmegiani L, Pelusi G, DeAloysio D. The use of LH activity to drive folliculogenesis: exploring uncharted territories in ovulation induction. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:543–557. doi: 10.1093/humupd/8.6.543.
    1. Kara M, Aydin T, Aran T, Turktekin N, Ozdemir B. Comparison of GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols in normoresponder patients who had IVF-ICSI. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288:1413–1416. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2903-z.
    1. Lai Q, Zhang H, Zhu G, Li Y, Jin L, He L, Zhang Z, Yang P, Yu Q, Zhang S, XU JF, Wang CY. Comparison of the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocol on the same patients in assisted reproduction during controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;6:1903–1910.
    1. Li Y, Lai Q, Zhang H, Zhu G, Jin L, Yue J. Comparison between a GnRH agonist and a GnRH antagonist protocol for the same patient undergoing IVF. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2008;28:618–620. doi: 10.1007/s11596-008-0529-3.
    1. Taskin EA, Atabekoglu CS, Musali N, Oztuna D, Sonmezer M. Association of serum estradiol levels on the day of hCG administration with pregnancy rates and embryo scores in fresh ICSI/ET cycles down regulated with either GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;298:399–405. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2984-8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner