Advanced Maternal Age in IVF: Still a Challenge? The Present and the Future of Its Treatment

Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Danilo Cimadomo, Alberto Vaiarelli, Gemma Fabozzi, Roberta Venturella, Roberta Maggiulli, Rossella Mazzilli, Susanna Ferrero, Antonio Palagiano, Laura Rienzi, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Danilo Cimadomo, Alberto Vaiarelli, Gemma Fabozzi, Roberta Venturella, Roberta Maggiulli, Rossella Mazzilli, Susanna Ferrero, Antonio Palagiano, Laura Rienzi

Abstract

Advanced maternal age (AMA; >35 year) is associated with a decline in both ovarian reserve and oocyte competence. At present, no remedies are available to counteract the aging-related fertility decay, however different therapeutic approaches can be offered to women older than 35 year undergoing IVF. This review summarizes the main current strategies proposed for the treatment of AMA: (i) oocyte cryopreservation to conduct fertility preservation for medical reasons or "social freezing" for non-medical reasons, (ii) personalized controlled ovarian stimulation to maximize the exploitation of the ovarian reserve in each patient, (iii) enhancement of embryo selection via blastocyst-stage preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and frozen single embryo transfer, or (iv) oocyte donation in case of minimal/null residual chance of pregnancy. Future strategies and tools are in the pipeline that might minimize the risks of AMA through non-invasive approaches for embryo selection (e.g., molecular analyses of leftover products of IVF, such as spent culture media). These are yet challenging but potentially ground-breaking perspectives promising a lower clinical workload with a higher cost-effectiveness. We also reviewed emerging experimental therapeutic approaches to attempt at restoring maternal reproductive potential, e.g., spindle-chromosomal complex, pronuclear or mitochondrial transfer, and chromosome therapy. In vitro generation of gametes is also an intriguing challenge for the future. Lastly, since infertility is a social issue, social campaigns, and education among future generations are desirable to promote the awareness of the impact of age and lifestyle habits upon fertility. This should be a duty of the clinical operators in this field.

Keywords: advanced maternal age; embryo selection; oocyte cryopreservation; oocyte donation; ovarian stimulation; single embryo transfer.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of the current and potential future approaches to prevent, compensate or solve the issues related with advanced maternal age on infertility, while limiting the putative concurrent risks. The consequences deriving from the onset of aging-related female infertility might be prevented by performing oocyte cryopreservation ideally when women are younger than 35 year; in the future, social campaigns and education are advisable to promote the awareness of the age-related female fertility decay. The main current strategy to compensate for the consequences of aging on oocyte competence (woman age range: 35–45 year) entails the maximization of the ovarian response by tailoring patients-specific protocols; in the future, oocyte competence might be rescued via promising approaches such as mitochondrial, spindle-chromosomal complex, pronuclear transfer or chromosome therapy, even though all these perspectives still need thorough and careful investigation. Oocyte donation represents the main current option to solve irrecoverable aging-related infertility conditions (woman age range: 40–50 year); the future avant-gardes that are motivating the academic research instead entail the generation of new gametes in vitro [e.g., from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) or oogonial stem cells (OSCs)]: an intriguing challenge with yet unpredictable outcomes. At last, the increasing maternal age brings about greater reproductive risks for the woman, the pregnancy she will eventually achieve and the new-born: to date, embryo selection via preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidies (PGT-A) performed by molecular platforms for comprehensive chromosome testing (CCT) on trophectoderm (TE) biopsies represents the most efficient workflow to counteract the hazards derived from embryo chromosomal aneuploidies. Agonist trigger and cycle segmentation are important to minimize the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) after IVF. Moreover, to avoid the onset of multiple gestations, single embryo transfer (SET) is strongly recommended, especially for euploid blastocysts. In the future, molecular analyses (DNA, mRNA, miRNA, and/or proteins) on leftover products of IVF retrieved via non-invasive procedures (e.g. cumulus cells, spent culture media after IVF) might be implemented clinically to complement (or even replace) invasive approaches of embryo selection thereby aiming at a successful SET. From left to right, the gray arrow represents the increasing maternal age from <30 to 50 year The blue triangle depicts the decreasing maternal fertility, while the orange triangle depicts the increasing risks that could derive from the treatment of infertility and/or the establishment of a pregnancy as the maternal age increases. In light blue, the current and emerging approaches to prevent the fertility decay. In light orange, the current and emerging approaches to compensate it. In green, egg donation is proposed as a current strategy to circumvent the aging issue of female gametes, while emerging still experimental approaches aim at solving this issue. In yellow, we summarized the current strategies recommended to limit the putative risks of an IVF treatment; in the future, non-invasive approaches for embryo selection might be implemented in this workflow to identify the embryo for SET.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The current clinical strategies to treat advanced maternal age (AMA) in IVF. The oocytes retrieved from a young patient undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte pick-up (OPU) are cryopreserved (i) to be used from the same woman years later thereby preventing the onset of infertility due to medical or non-medical reasons (in blue), or (ii) to be used from a different woman indicated to egg donation (in green). The main strategy to compensate for the age-related infertility in AMA patients is to tailor COS on each woman peculiar characteristics attempting at maximizing the ovarian response. Indeed, while the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh embryo transfer (ET; i.e., only first transfer accounted) plateaus when more than 15 oocytes are retrieved (in gray), the cumulative LBR (CLBR) per cycle (i.e., all consecutive fresh and frozen ETs accounted) instead keeps increasing at any age (in orange). Data adapted from (30).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The theory behind preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidies (PGT-A) and the related workflow. For both non-PGT and PGT-A cycles, a woman undergoes controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), oocyte pick-up (OPU), intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) conducted with male partner's sperm, and embryo culture to the blastocyst stage. The differences between non-PGT and PGT-A cycles instead entail for the latter (in yellow): (i) the trophectoderm (TE) biopsy of the blastocysts obtained, (ii) the molecular comprehensive chromosome testing (CCT) of the biopsied fragment, (iii) the definition of euploid blastocysts (in green), which are selected for embryo transfer (ET), and (iv) the definition of aneuploid blastocysts (in red), which are instead prevented from being transferred. In an advanced maternal age (AMA) population (e.g., 39 year mean maternal age), the aneuploidy rate at the blastocyst stage is about 50–55%. In theory, if all the untested blastocysts obtained after a non-PGT and all the euploid blastocysts diagnosed after a PGT-A cycle would be transferred, the latter strategy is expected to bring about (i) the same cumulative live birth rate (CLBR, i.e., the number of babies born per cycle; in blue), (ii) a lower miscarriage rate (in orange), (iii) less ETs resulting in an implantation failure with a negative pregnancy test (in gray), and (iv) no chromosomally-abnormal pregnancy (in black). Data adapted from Capalbo et al. (5), Franasiak et al. (6), Dahdouh et al. (115), Chen et al. (116), and Ubaldi et al. (117).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Potential future therapeutic approaches to treat advanced maternal age (AMA) infertility. To compensate before fertilization. The approaches that have been theorized are: •The spindle-chromosomal complex transfer from the mature oocyte of an infertile AMA woman (in orange) to the oocyte of a young donor (whose spindle-chromosomal complex was previously removed; in gray). The latter oocyte should be then used to perform IVF; •The transfer of additional mitochondria to the oocyte of an infertile AMA woman. The source of the additional mitochondria might be a donated oocyte (in gray). Also autologous sources have been proposed, i.e., oocytes obtained from ovarian biopsies and in vitro maturation (IVM), other immature oocytes that cannot be used for IVF, ovarian somatic cells (e.g., cumulus or granulosa cells) (all in orange). Some groups reported that autologous mitochondria can be obtained also from oogonial stem cells (OSCs) isolated from ovarian biopsies (in green); •Chromosome therapy to correct meiotic aneuploidies in the oocyte. To compensate after fertilization. The approaches that have been theorized are •The use of the sperm from male partner (in orange) to fertilize both the patient's (in orange) and the donor's egg(s) (in gray), to then remove the pronuclei from the zygote originating from the latter and replace them with the pronuclei from the zygote originating from the former (i.e., pronuclear transfer); •Chromosome therapy to correct aneuploidies in the zygote. To solve (in green). Two strategies have been theorized: •The isolation of OSCs from ovarian biopsies retrieved from the infertile patient to then trigger the formation of new autologous oocytes by either transplanting them back in the ovary or by performing IVM; •The isolation of somatic cells, that are then transformed into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are finally differentiated into new autologous oocytes. Of note, all these putative future therapeutic strategies are still experimental and/or raised biological, genetic, technical, and ethical concerns.

References

    1. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E, ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update (2011) 17:848–60. 10.1093/humupd/dmr026
    1. Schmidt L, Sobotka T, Bentzen JG, Nyboe Andersen A, ESHRE Reproduction and Force Society Task. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Hum Reprod Update (2012) 18:29–43. 10.1093/humupd/dmr040
    1. Leridon H. Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Reprod. (2004) 19:1548–53. 10.1093/humrep/deh304
    1. Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Traeger-Synodinos J, Van Rij M, Harper J, et al. . ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Hum Reprod. (2009) 24:1786–810. 10.1093/humrep/dep059
    1. Capalbo A, Hoffmann ER, Cimadomo D, Maria Ubaldi F, Rienzi L. Human female meiosis revised: new insights into the mechanisms of chromosome segregation and aneuploidies from advanced genomics and time-lapse imaging. Hum Reprod Update (2017) 23:706–22. 10.1093/humupd/dmx026
    1. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. . The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. (2014) 101:656–63.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004
    1. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, Trabucco E, et al. . Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. (2017) 107:1173–80. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.007
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. (2018) 30:155–62. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000452
    1. Miao YL, Kikuchi K, Sun QY, Schatten H. Oocyte aging: cellular and molecular changes, developmental potential and reversal possibility. Hum Reprod Update (2009) 15:573–85. 10.1093/humupd/dmp014
    1. Keefe D, Kumar M, Kalmbach K. Oocyte competency is the key to embryo potential. Fertil Steril. (2015) 103:317–22. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.115
    1. Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Vaiarelli A, Ubaldi N, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence. Front Endocrinol. (2018) 9:327. 10.3389/fendo.2018.00327
    1. Cheng JM, Liu YX. Age-related loss of cohesion: causes and effects. Int J Mol Sci. (2017) 18:E1578. 10.3390/ijms18071578
    1. Steuerwald N, Cohen J, Herrera RJ, Sandalinas M, Brenner CA. Association between spindle assembly checkpoint expression and maternal age in human oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. (2001) 7:49–55. 10.1093/molehr/7.1.49
    1. Kolano A, Brunet S, Silk AD, Cleveland DW, Verlhac MH. Error-prone mammalian female meiosis from silencing the spindle assembly checkpoint without normal interkinetochore tension. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2012) 109:E1858–67. 10.1073/pnas.1204686109
    1. Nagaoka SI, Hodges CA, Albertini DF, Hunt PA. Oocyte-specific differences in cell-cycle control create an innate susceptibility to meiotic errors. Curr Biol. (2011) 21:651–7. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.003
    1. Keefe DL. Telomeres, reproductive aging, and genomic instability during early development. Reprod Sci. (2016) 23:1612–5. 10.1177/1933719116676397
    1. de Lange T. How telomeres solve the end-protection problem. Science (2009) 326:948–52. 10.1126/science.1170633
    1. Van Blerkom J. Mitochondrial function in the human oocyte and embryo and their role in developmental competence. Mitochondrion (2011) 11:797–813. 10.1016/j.mito.2010.09.012
    1. Eichenlaub-Ritter U. Oocyte ageing and its cellular basis. Int J Dev Biol. (2012) 56:841–52. 10.1387/ijdb.120141ue
    1. Liu K, Case A, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Committee. Advanced reproductive age and fertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. (2011) 33:1165–75. 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35087-3
    1. van Eekelen R, van Geloven N, van Wely M, McLernon DJ, Eijkemans MJ, Repping S, et al. . Constructing the crystal ball: how to get reliable prognostic information for the management of subfertile couples. Hum Reprod. (2017) 32:2153–8. 10.1093/humrep/dex311
    1. Ziller V, Heilmaier C, Kostev K. Time to pregnancy in subfertile women in German gynecological practices: analysis of a representative cohort of more than 60,000 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. (2015) 291:657–62. 10.1007/s00404-014-3449-4
    1. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. . Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update (2013) 19:26–36. 10.1093/humupd/dms041
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. . International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. (2009) 92:1520–4. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009
    1. La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, Ubaldi FM. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol. (2016) 32:1–5. 10.3109/09513590.2015.1102879
    1. Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update (2016) 22:2–22. 10.1093/humupd/dmv034
    1. Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update (2015) 21:727–47. 10.1093/humupd/dmu064
    1. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. (2015) 30:2703–7. 10.1093/humrep/dev263
    1. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. (2011) 26:1768–74. 10.1093/humrep/der106
    1. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. . Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. (2016) 31:370–6. 10.1093/humrep/dev316
    1. Magnusson A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Bergh C. The number of oocytes retrieved during IVF: a balance between efficacy and safety. Hum Reprod. (2017) 33:58–64. 10.1093/humrep/dex334
    1. Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, et al. . Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including approximately 15,000 women. Fertil Steril. (2018) 110:661–70.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.039
    1. Briggs R, Kovacs G, MacLachlan V, Motteram C, Baker HW. Can you ever collect too many oocytes? Hum Reprod. (2015) 30:81–7. 10.1093/humrep/deu272
    1. Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Impact of luteinizing hormone administration on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an age-adjusted analysis. Fertil Steril. (2011) 95:1031–6. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.021
    1. Mochtar MH, van der Veen F, Ziech M, van Wely M. Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone (rLH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2007) 5:CD005070 10.1002/14651858.CD005070.pub2
    1. Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Schertz J, Saunders H, Arriagada P, et al. . Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2014) 12:17. 10.1186/1477-7827-12-17
    1. Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, Ryan ME, Csokmay JM, DeCherney AH, et al. . The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. (2012) 97:1108–14.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.130
    1. Fauser BCJM. Patient-tailored ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. (2017) 108:585–91. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.016
    1. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update (2014) 20:124–40. 10.1093/humupd/dmt037
    1. Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg RF, et al. . GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update (2017) 23:560–79. 10.1093/humupd/dmx017
    1. Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Andersen CY, Bosch E, Buhler K, et al. . Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. (2018) 109:644–64. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.003
    1. Frattarelli JL, Peterson EH. Effect of androgen levels on in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. (2004) 81:1713–4. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.032
    1. Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. (2011) 26:2593–7. 10.1093/humrep/der251
    1. Fauser BC, Nargund G, Andersen AN, Norman R, Tarlatzis B, Boivin J, et al. . Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod. (2010) 25:2678–84. 10.1093/humrep/deq247
    1. Youssef MA, van Wely M, Al-Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S, et al. . A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. (2017) 32:112–8. 10.1093/humrep/dew282
    1. Alper MM, Fauser BC. Ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF: is more better than less? Reprod Biomed Online (2017) 34:345–53. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.01.010
    1. Revelli A, Casano S, Salvagno F, Delle Piane L. Milder is better? Advantages and disadvantages of “mild” ovarian stimulation for human in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2011) 9:25. 10.1186/1477-7827-9-25
    1. Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour GI, Al-Inany HG, Fahmy I, Amin Y. The use of clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins in conjunction with GnRH antagonist in an IVF/ICSI program is not a cost effective protocol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (2003) 82:48–52. 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.820108.x
    1. Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, Gosden R, Crowley WF, Jr, Baird DT, et al. . Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod. (1999) 14:2681–6. 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2681
    1. Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, Smith GW, Ireland JJ. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. (2015) 104:1145–52.e1–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1151
    1. Yilmaz N, Yilmaz S, Inal H, Gorkem U, Seckin B, Turkkani A, et al. . Is there a detrimental effect of higher gonadotrophin dose on clinical pregnancy rate in normo-responders undergoing ART with long protocol? Arch Gynecol Obstet. (2013) 287:1039–44. 10.1007/s00404-012-2673-z
    1. Borges E, Jr, Zanetti BF, Setti AS, Braga DP, Figueira RCS, Iaconelli A, Jr. FSH dose to stimulate different patient ages: when less is more. JBRA Assist Reprod. (2017) 21:336–42. 10.5935/1518-0557.20170058
    1. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. . Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. (2014) 29:1173–81. 10.1093/humrep/deu033
    1. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, et al. . Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update (2014) 20:808–21. 10.1093/humupd/dmu027
    1. Eftekhar M, Aflatoonian A, Mohammadian F, Eftekhar T. Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. (2013) 287:1017–21. 10.1007/s00404-012-2655-1
    1. Duffy JM, Ahmad G, Mohiyiddeen L, Nardo LG, Watson A. Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2010) 1:CD000099 10.1002/14651858.CD000099.pub3
    1. Yeung T, Chai J, Li R, Lee V, Ho PC, Ng E. A double-blind randomised controlled trial on the effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian reserve markers, ovarian response and number of oocytes in anticipated normal ovarian responders. BJOG (2016) 123:1097–105. 10.1111/1471-0528.13808
    1. Yeung TW, Chai J, Li RH, Lee VC, Ho PC, Ng E, et al. . A randomized, controlled, pilot trial on the effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian response markers, ovarian response, and in vitro fertilization outcomes in poor responders. Fertil Steril. (2014) 102:108–15.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.044
    1. Bosdou JK, Venetis CA, Dafopoulos K, Zepiridis L, Chatzimeletiou K, Anifandis G, et al. . Transdermal testosterone pretreatment in poor responders undergoing ICSI: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. (2016) 31:977–85. 10.1093/humrep/dew028
    1. Polyzos NP, Davis SR, Drakopoulos P, Humaidan P, De Geyter C, Vega AG, et al. . Testosterone for poor ovarian responders: lessons from ovarian physiology. Reprod Sci. (2016) 25:980–2. 10.1177/1933719116660849
    1. Poseidon Group, Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:1452–3. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
    1. Cobo A, Garrido N, Crespo J, Jose R, Pellicer A. Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online (2012) 24:424–32. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.12.012
    1. Martinez F, Barbed C, Parriego M, Sole M, Rodriguez I, Coroleu B. Usefulness of oocyte accumulation in low ovarian response for PGS. Gynecol Endocrinol. (2016) 32:577–80. 10.3109/09513590.2016.1141881
    1. Chatziparasidou A, Nijs M, Moisidou M, Chara O, Ioakeimidou C, Pappas C, et al. . Accumulation of oocytes and/or embryos by vitrification, a new strategy for managing poor responder patients undergoing pre implantation diagnosis. F1000 Res. (2013) 2:240. 10.12688/f1000research.2-240.v1
    1. Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, et al. . Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online (2014) 29:684–91. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.009
    1. Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Alviggi C, et al. . Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:1488–95.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002
    1. Vaiarelli A, Venturella R, Vizziello D, Bulletti F, Ubaldi FM. Dual ovarian stimulation and random start in assisted reproductive technologies: from ovarian biology to clinical application. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. (2017) 29:153–9. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000365
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, Vallefuoco R, Buffo L, Dusi L, et al. . Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: a multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol. (2018) 9:317. 10.3389/fendo.2018.00317
    1. Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, Trabucco E, Alviggi C, Venturella R, et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod. (2018) 33:1442–8. 10.1093/humrep/dey217
    1. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update (2012) 18:73–91. 10.1093/humupd/dmr039
    1. Massin N. New stimulation regimens: endogenous and exogenous progesterone use to block the LH surge during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update (2017) 23:211–20. 10.1093/humupd/dmw047
    1. Liu C, Jiang H, Zhang W, Yin H. Double ovarian stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase in women ≥38 years: a retrospective case-control study. Reprod Biomed Online (2017) 35:678–84. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.019
    1. Wang N, Wang Y, Chen Q, Dong J, Tian H, Fu Y, et al. . Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs conventional ovarian stimulation in patients with normal ovarian reserve treated for IVF: a large retrospective cohort study. Clin Endocrinol. (2016) 84:720–8. 10.1111/cen.12983
    1. Li Y, Yang W, Chen X, Li L, Zhang Q, Yang D. Comparison between follicular stimulation and luteal stimulation protocols with clomiphene and HMG in women with poor ovarian response. Gynecol Endocrinol. (2016) 32:74–7. 10.3109/09513590.2015.1081683
    1. Boots CE, Meister M, Cooper AR, Hardi A, Jungheim ES. Ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2016) 33:971–80. 10.1007/s10815-016-0721-5
    1. Chen H, Wang Y, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Tian H, et al. . Comparison of live-birth defects after luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. (2015) 103:1194–201.e2. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.020
    1. Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, et al. . Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. (2014) 101:105–11. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007
    1. Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. Oocyte versus embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation in cancer patients: guaranteeing a womens autonomy. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2015) 32:1195–6. 10.1007/s10815-015-0507-1
    1. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. (2013) 99:37–43. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028
    1. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. . Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update (2017) 23:139–55. 10.1093/humupd/dmw038
    1. Martinez F. Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: indications, results and future perspectives. Hum Reprod. (2017) 32:1802–11. 10.1093/humrep/dex218
    1. Martinez F, ESHRE-ASRM Expert Working Group International Society for Fertility Preservation. Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: indications, results and future perspectives. Fertil Steril. (2017) 108:407–15.e11. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.024
    1. Stoop DF, van der Veen F, Deneyer M, Nekkebroeck J, Tournaye H. Oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion (AGE) is a preventive intervention, neither social nor nonmedical. Reprod Biomed Online (2014) 28:548–51. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.007
    1. De Munck N, Vajta G. Safety and efficiency of oocyte vitrification. Cryobiology (2017) 78:119–27. 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2017.07.009
    1. Goldman KN, Grifo JA. Elective oocyte cryopreservation for deferred childbearing. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. (2016) 23:458–64. 10.1097/MED.0000000000000291
    1. Goldman KN, Kramer Y, Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, McCaffrey C, Grifo J, et al. Long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes does not increase embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. (2015) 103:662–8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.11.025
    1. Stigliani S, Moretti S, Anserini P, Casciano I, Venturini PL, Scaruffi P. Storage time does not modify the gene expression profile of cryopreserved human metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod. (2015) 30:2519–26. 10.1093/humrep/dev232
    1. Gunnala V, Schattman G. Oocyte vitrification for elective fertility preservation: the past, present, and future. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. (2017) 29:59–63. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000339
    1. Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott RT, Jr. Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil Steril. (2012) 98:644–9. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.028
    1. Goold I, Savulescu J. In favour of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons. Bioethics (2009) 23:47–58. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00679.x
    1. Harwood K. Egg freezing: a breakthrough for reproductive autonomy? Bioethics (2009) 23:39–46. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00680.x
    1. Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker M, et al. . Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:459–66.e2. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.026
    1. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:755–64.e8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.027
    1. Saumet J, Petropanagos A, Buzaglo K, McMahon E, Warraich G, Mahutte N. No. 356-Egg Freezing for Age-Related Fertility Decline. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. (2018) 40:356–68. 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.08.004
    1. Oktay K. Evidence for limiting ovarian tissue harvesting for the purpose of transplantation to women younger than 40 years of age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2002) 87:1907–8. 10.1210/jcem.87.4.8367
    1. Oktay K, Buyuk E. The potential of ovarian tissue transplant to preserve fertility. Expert Opin Biol Ther. (2002) 2:361–70. 10.1517/14712598.2.4.361
    1. Oktay K, Oktem O. Ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation for fertility preservation for medical indications: report of an ongoing experience. Fertil Steril. (2010) 93:762–8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.006
    1. Oktay KH, Yih M. Preliminary experience with orthotopic and heterotopic transplantation of ovarian cortical strips. Semin Reprod Med. (2002) 20:63–74. 10.1055/s-2002-23520
    1. Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, Brennan L, Magdalinski AJ, Partridge AH, et al. . Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. (2013) 31:2500–10. 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.2678
    1. Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, et al. . Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000–2010. JAMA (2013) 310:2426–34. 10.1001/jama.2013.280924
    1. Pados G, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, Bonduelle M, Devroey P. The evolution and outcome of pregnancies from oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. (1994) 9:538–42. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138541
    1. Grotegut CA, Chisholm CA, Johnson LN, Brown HL, Heine RP, James A, et al. . Medical and obstetric complications among pregnant women aged 45 and older. PLoS ONE (2014) 9:e96237. 10.1371/journal.pone.0096237
    1. Sauer MV. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril. (2015) 103:1136–43. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.004
    1. Michalas S, Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Milingos S, Papageorgiou J, Kallianidis K, et al. . Oocyte donation to women over 40 years of age: pregnancy complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. (1996) 64:175–8. 10.1016/0301-2115(95)02335-6
    1. Soares SR, Troncoso C, Bosch E, Serra V, Simon C, Remohi J, et al. . Age and uterine receptiveness: predicting the outcome of oocyte donation cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2005) 90:4399–404. 10.1210/jc.2004-2252
    1. Simchen MJ, Yinon Y, Moran O, Schiff E, Sivan E. Pregnancy outcome after age 50. Obstet Gynecol. (2006) 108:1084–8. 10.1097/
    1. Gundogan F, Bianchi DW, Scherjon SA, Roberts DJ. Placental pathology in egg donor pregnancies. Fertil Steril. (2010) 93:397–404. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.144
    1. Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Romundstad LB, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG (2017) 124:561–72. 10.1111/1471-0528.14257
    1. Jeve YB, Potdar N, Opoku A, Khare M. Donor oocyte conception and pregnancy complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG (2016) 123:1471–80. 10.1111/1471-0528.13910
    1. Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Intarut N, Mori R, Ganchimeg T, Vogel JP, et al. . Advanced maternal age and pregnancy outcomes: a multicountry assessment. BJOG (2014) 121 (Suppl. 1):49–56. 10.1111/1471-0528.12659
    1. Land JA, Evers JL. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod. (2003) 18:455–7. 10.1093/humrep/deg081
    1. Capalbo A, Romanelli V, Cimadomo D, Girardi L, Stoppa M, Dovere L, et al. . Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2016) 33:1279–86. 10.1007/s10815-016-0768-3
    1. Werner MD, Leondires MP, Schoolcraft WB, Miller BT, Copperman AB, Robins ED, et al. . Clinically recognizable error rate after the transfer of comprehensive chromosomal screened euploid embryos is low. Fertil Steril. (2014) 102:1613–8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.011
    1. Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Munne S, Grifo JA. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2016) 33:893–7. 10.1007/s10815-016-0695-3
    1. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. (2015) 104:1503–12. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038
    1. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE (2015) 10:e0140779. 10.1371/journal.pone.0140779
    1. Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G, et al. . Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. (2015) 30:2097–106. 10.1093/humrep/dev159
    1. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature (1990) 344:768–70. 10.1038/344768a0
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk MF, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update (2011) 17:454–66. 10.1093/humupd/dmr003
    1. Scott RT, Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. (2013) 100:624–30. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039
    1. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Scarica C, Palagiano A, Canipari R, et al. . The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Biomed Res Int. (2016) 2016:7193075. 10.1155/2016/7193075
    1. Verpoest W, Staessen CM, Bossuyt P, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. . Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. (2018) 33:1767–76. 10.1093/humrep/dey262
    1. Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. . Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. (2015) 23:901–6. 10.1038/ejhg.2014.222
    1. Scott RT, Jr, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff N, et al. . Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. (2012) 97:870–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.104
    1. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, et al. . Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. (2016) 31:199–208. 10.1093/humrep/dev294
    1. De Rycke M. Data from the ESHRE PGD consortium. In: ESHRE Annual Meeting 2018. Barcelona: (2018).
    1. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. (2016) 106:244–50. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029
    1. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. (2018) 109:429–36. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002
    1. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillon G, Guillen A, Vidal C, et al. . In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. (2017) 107:1122–9. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. . In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. (2013) 100:100–7.e1. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott RT, Jr. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. (2014) 210:157.e1–6. 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.016
    1. Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Qiao J. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2017) 34:487–93. 10.1007/s10815-017-0875-9
    1. Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy Z, et al. . FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. (2013) 28:2298–307. 10.1093/humrep/det245
    1. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, Goodall NN, Mania A, Griffiths T, et al. . Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod. (2011) 26:480–90. 10.1093/humrep/deq344
    1. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT, Jr. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. (2010) 16:590–600. 10.1093/molehr/gaq037
    1. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, et al. . Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. (2010) 16:944–9. 10.1093/molehr/gaq062
    1. Popovic M, Dheedene A, Christodoulou C, Taelman J, Dhaenens L, Van Nieuwerburgh F, et al. . Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: the ultimate challenge of preimplantation genetic testing? Hum Reprod. (2018) 33:1342–54. 10.1093/humrep/dey106
    1. Victor AR, Griffin DK, Brake AJ, Tyndall JC, Murphy AE, Lepkowsky LT, et al. . Assessment of aneuploidy concordance between clinical trophectoderm biopsy and blastocyst. Hum Reprod. (2019) 34:181–92. 10.1093/humrep/dey327
    1. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. (2015) 373:2089–90. 10.1056/NEJMc1500421
    1. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Babariya D, Tarozzi N, Borini A, et al. . Analysis of implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates following the transfer of mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts. Hum Genet. (2017) 136:805–19. 10.1007/s00439-017-1797-4
    1. Munne S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. . Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. (2017) 108:62–71.e8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.002
    1. Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Ruberti A, Cotroneo E, et al. . Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril. (2018) 109:77–83. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.09.025
    1. Treff NR, Franasiak JM. Detection of segmental aneuploidy and mosaicism in the human preimplantation embryo: technical considerations and limitations. Fertil Steril. (2016) 107:27–31. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.039
    1. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Scott R, Treff N. Detecting mosaicism in trophectoderm biopsies: current challenges and future possibilities. Hum Reprod. (2016) 32:492–8. 10.1093/humrep/dew250
    1. Capalbo A, Rienzi L. Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril. (2017) 107:1098–106. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.023
    1. Goodrich D, Tao X, Bohrer C, Lonczak A, Xing T, Zimmerman R, et al. . A randomized and blinded comparison of qPCR and NGS-based detection of aneuploidy in a cell line mixture model of blastocyst biopsy mosaicism. J Assist Reprod Genet. (2016) 33:1473–80. 10.1007/s10815-016-0784-3
    1. Gardner DK, Balaban B. Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and OMICS: is looking good still important? Mol Hum Reprod. (2016) 22:704–18. 10.1093/molehr/gaw057
    1. Katz-Jaffe MG, McReynolds S, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome. Mol Hum Reprod. (2009) 15:271–7. 10.1093/molehr/gap012
    1. Poli M, Ori A, Child T, Jaroudi S, Spath K, Beck M, et al. . Characterization and quantification of proteins secreted by single human embryos prior to implantation. EMBO Mol Med. (2015) 7:1465–79. 10.15252/emmm.201505344
    1. Giacomini E, Vago R, Sanchez AM, Podini P, Zarovni N, Murdica V, et al. . Secretome of in vitro cultured human embryos contains extracellular vesicles that are uptaken by the maternal side. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:5210. 10.1038/s41598-017-05549-w
    1. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Noli L, Khalaf Y, Farcomeni A, et al. . MicroRNAs in spent blastocyst culture medium are derived from trophectoderm cells and can be explored for human embryo reproductive competence assessment. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:225–35.e3. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.014
    1. Hammond ER, Stewart B, Peek JC, Shelling AN, Cree LM. Assessing embryo quality by combining non-invasive markers: early time-lapse parameters reflect gene expression in associated cumulus cells. Hum Reprod. (2015) 30:1850–60. 10.1093/humrep/dev121
    1. Hammond ER, McGillivray BC, Wicker SM, Peek JC, Shelling AN, Stone P, et al. . Characterizing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in spent embryo culture media: genetic contamination identified. Fertil Steril. (2017) 107:220–8.e5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.015
    1. Hammond ER, Shelling AN, Cree LM. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in blastocoele fluid and embryo culture medium: evidence and potential clinical use. Hum Reprod. (2016) 31:1653–61. 10.1093/humrep/dew132
    1. Tobler KJ, Zhao Y, Ross R, Benner AT, Xu X, Du L, et al. . Blastocoel fluid from differentiated blastocysts harbors embryonic genomic material capable of a whole-genome deoxyribonucleic acid amplification and comprehensive chromosome microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. (2015) 104:418–25. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.028
    1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Pomante A, Crivello AM, Cafueri G, Valerio M, et al. . Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril. (2014) 102:1692–9.e6. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.08.021
    1. Xu J, Fang R, Chen L, Chen D, Xiao JP, Yang W, et al. . Noninvasive chromosome screening of human embryos by genome sequencing of embryo culture medium for in vitro fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2016) 113:11907–12. 10.1073/pnas.1613294113
    1. Shamonki MI, Jin H, Haimowitz Z, Liu L. Proof of concept: preimplantation genetic screening without embryo biopsy through analysis of cell-free DNA in spent embryo culture media. Fertil Steril. (2016) 106:1312–8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1112
    1. Ho JR, Arrach N, Rhodes-Long K, Ahmady A, Ingles S, Chung K, et al. . Pushing the limits of detection: investigation of cell-free DNA for aneuploidy screening in embryos. Fertil Steril. (2018) 110:467–75.e2. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.036
    1. Vera-Rodriguez M, Diez-Juan A, Jimenez-Almazan J, Martinez S, Navarro R, Peinado V, et al. . Origin and composition of cell-free DNA in spent medium from human embryo culture during preimplantation development. Hum Reprod. (2018) 33:745–56. 10.1093/humrep/dey028
    1. Kuznyetsov V, Madjunkova S, Antes R, Abramov R, Motamedi G, Ibarrientos Z, et al. . Evaluation of a novel non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening approach. PLoS ONE (2018) 13:e0197262. 10.1371/journal.pone.0197262
    1. Capalbo A, Romanelli V, Patassini C, Poli M, Girardi L, Giancani A, et al. . Diagnostic efficacy of blastocoel fluid and spent media as sources of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing in standard clinical conditions. Fertil Steril. (2018) 110:870–79.e5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.031
    1. May-Panloup P, Boucret L, Chao de la Barca JM, Desquiret-Dumas V, Ferre-L'Hotellier V, Moriniere C, et al. . Ovarian ageing: the role of mitochondria in oocytes and follicles. Hum Reprod Update (2016) 22:725–43. 10.1093/humupd/dmw028
    1. Cohen J, Scott R, Alikani M, Schimmel T, Munne S, Levron J, et al. . Ooplasmic transfer in mature human oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. (1998) 4:269–80. 10.1093/molehr/4.3.269
    1. Van Blerkom J, Sinclair J, Davis P. Mitochondrial transfer between oocytes: potential applications of mitochondrial donation and the issue of heteroplasmy. Hum Reprod. (1998) 13:2857–68. 10.1093/humrep/13.10.2857
    1. Barritt J, Willadsen S, Brenner C, Cohen J. Cytoplasmic transfer in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update (2001) 7:428–35. 10.1093/humupd/7.4.428
    1. Woods DC, Tilly JL. Autologous germline mitochondrial energy transfer (AUGMENT) in human assisted reproduction. Semin Reprod Med. (2015) 33:410–21. 10.1055/s-0035-1567826
    1. Meldrum DR, Casper RF, Diez-Juan A, Simon C, Domar AD, Frydman R. Aging and the environment affect gamete and embryo potential: can we intervene? Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:548–59. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.013
    1. Kristensen SG, Pors SE, Andersen CY. Improving oocyte quality by transfer of autologous mitochondria from fully grown oocytes. Hum Reprod. (2017) 32:725–32. 10.1093/humrep/dex043
    1. Schatten H, Sun QY, Prather R. The impact of mitochondrial function/dysfunction on IVF and new treatment possibilities for infertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2014) 12:111. 10.1186/1477-7827-12-111
    1. Craven L, Murphy J, Turnbull DM, Taylor RW, Gorman GS, McFarland R. Scientific and ethical issues in mitochondrial donation. New Bioeth. (2018) 24:57–73. 10.1080/20502877.2018.1440725
    1. Mitalipov S, Wolf DP. Clinical and ethical implications of mitochondrial gene transfer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. (2014) 25:5–7. 10.1016/j.tem.2013.09.001
    1. Caicedo A, Aponte PM, Cabrera F, Hidalgo C, Khoury M. Artificial mitochondria transfer: current challenges, advances, and future applications. Stem Cells Int. (2017) 2017:7610414. 10.1155/2017/7610414
    1. Tachibana M, Sparman M, Sritanaudomchai H, Ma H, Clepper L, Woodward J, et al. . Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature (2009) 461:367–72. 10.1038/nature08368
    1. Craven L, Tuppen HA, Greggains GD, Harbottle SJ, Murphy JL, Cree LM, et al. . Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature (2010) 465:82–5. 10.1038/nature08958
    1. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, et al. . Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science (2015) 348:36–8. 10.1126/science.aab1028
    1. Jiang J, Jing Y, Cost GJ, Chiang JC, Kolpa HJ, Cotton AM, et al. . Translating dosage compensation to trisomy 21. Nature (2013) 500:296–300. 10.1038/nature12394
    1. Amano T, Jeffries E, Amano M, Ko AC, Yu H, Ko M, et al. . Correction of Down syndrome and Edwards syndrome aneuploidies in human cell cultures. DNA Res. (2015) 22:331–42. 10.1093/dnares/dsv016
    1. Zuo E, Huo X, Yao X, Hu X, Sun Y, Yin J, et al. . CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted chromosome elimination. Genome Biol. (2017) 18:224. 10.1186/s13059-017-1354-4
    1. Hayashi K, Ogushi S, Kurimoto K, Shimamoto S, Ohta H, Saitou M. Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial germ cell-like cells in mice. Science (2012) 338:971–5. 10.1126/science.1226889
    1. Johnson J, Canning J, Kaneko T, Pru JK, Tilly JL. Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary. Nature (2004) 428:145–50. 10.1038/nature02316
    1. Zuckerman S. The number of oocytes in the mature ovary. Recent Prog Horm Res. (1951) 6:63–108.
    1. Bukovsky A, Svetlikova M, Caudle MR. Oogenesis in cultures derived from adult human ovaries. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2005) 3:17. 10.1186/1477-7827-3-17
    1. Johnson J, Bagley J, Skaznik-Wikiel M, Lee HJ, Adams GB, Niikura Y, et al. . Oocyte generation in adult mammalian ovaries by putative germ cells in bone marrow and peripheral blood. Cell (2005) 122:303–15. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.06.031
    1. Virant-Klun I, Zech N, Rozman P, Vogler A, Cvjeticanin B, Klemenc P, et al. . Putative stem cells with an embryonic character isolated from the ovarian surface epithelium of women with no naturally present follicles and oocytes. Differentiation (2008) 76:843–56. 10.1111/j.1432-0436.2008.00268.x
    1. Niikura Y, Niikura T, Tilly JL. Aged mouse ovaries possess rare premeiotic germ cells that can generate oocytes following transplantation into a young host environment. Aging (2009) 1:971–8. 10.18632/aging.100105
    1. Zou K, Yuan Z, Yang Z, Luo H, Sun K, Zhou L, et al. . Production of offspring from a germline stem cell line derived from neonatal ovaries. Nat Cell Biol. (2009) 11:631–6. 10.1038/ncb1869
    1. Parte S, Bhartiya D, Telang J, Daithankar V, Salvi V, Zaveri K, et al. . Detection, characterization, and spontaneous differentiation in vitro of very small embryonic-like putative stem cells in adult mammalian ovary. Stem Cells Dev. (2011) 20:1451–64. 10.1089/scd.2010.0461
    1. Zhang Y, Yang Z, Yang Y, Wang S, Shi L, Xie W, et al. . Production of transgenic mice by random recombination of targeted genes in female germline stem cells. J Mol Cell Biol. (2011) 3:132–41. 10.1093/jmcb/mjq043
    1. White YA, Woods DC, Takai Y, Ishihara O, Seki H, Tilly J, et al. . Oocyte formation by mitotically active germ cells purified from ovaries of reproductive-age women. Nat Med. (2012) 18:413–21. 10.1038/nm.2669
    1. Zhou L, Wang L, Kang JX, Xie W, Li X, Wu C, et al. . Production of fat-1 transgenic rats using a post-natal female germline stem cell line. Mol Hum Reprod. (2014) 20:271–81. 10.1093/molehr/gat081
    1. Stimpfel M, Skutella T, Cvjeticanin B, Meznaric M, Dovc P, Novakovic S, et al. . Isolation, characterization and differentiation of cells expressing pluripotent/multipotent markers from adult human ovaries. Cell Tissue Res. (2013) 354:593–607. 10.1007/s00441-013-1677-8
    1. Parte S, Bhartiya D, Patel H, Daithankar V, Chauhan A, Zaveri K, et al. . Dynamics associated with spontaneous differentiation of ovarian stem cells in vitro. J Ovarian Res. (2014) 7:25. 10.1186/1757-2215-7-25
    1. Hernandez SF, Vahidi NA, Park S, Weitzel RP, Tisdale J, Rueda BR, et al. . Characterization of extracellular DDX4- or Ddx4-positive ovarian cells. Nat Med. (2015) 21:1114–6. 10.1038/nm.3966
    1. Bristol-Gould SK, Kreeger PK, Selkirk CG, Kilen SM, Mayo KE, Shea LD, et al. . Fate of the initial follicle pool: empirical and mathematical evidence supporting its sufficiency for adult fertility. Dev Biol. (2006) 298:149–54. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.06.023
    1. Liu Y, Wu C, Lyu Q, Yang D, Albertini DF, Keefe DL, et al. . Germline stem cells and neo-oogenesis in the adult human ovary. Dev Biol. (2007) 306:112–20. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.03.006
    1. Byskov AG, Hoyer PE, Yding Andersen C, Kristensen SG, Jespersen A, Mollgard K. No evidence for the presence of oogonia in the human ovary after their final clearance during the first two years of life. Hum Reprod. (2011) 26:2129–39. 10.1093/humrep/der145
    1. Kerr JB, Brogan L, Myers M, Hutt KJ, Mladenovska T, Ricardo S, et al. . The primordial follicle reserve is not renewed after chemical or gamma-irradiation mediated depletion. Reproduction (2012) 143:469–76. 10.1530/REP-11-0430
    1. Zhang H, Zheng W, Shen Y, Adhikari D, Ueno H, Liu K. Experimental evidence showing that no mitotically active female germline progenitors exist in postnatal mouse ovaries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2012) 109:12580–5. 10.1073/pnas.1206600109
    1. Lei L, Spradling AC. Female mice lack adult germ-line stem cells but sustain oogenesis using stable primordial follicles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2013) 110:8585–90. 10.1073/pnas.1306189110
    1. Yuan J, Zhang D, Wang L, Liu M, Mao J, Yin Y, et al. . No evidence for neo-oogenesis may link to ovarian senescence in adult monkey. Stem Cells (2013) 31:2538–50. 10.1002/stem.1480
    1. Horan CJ, Williams SA. Oocyte stem cells: fact or fantasy? Reproduction (2017) 154:R23–35. 10.1530/REP-17-0008
    1. Dunlop CE, Telfer EE, Anderson RA. Ovarian stem cells–potential roles in infertility treatment and fertility preservation. Maturitas (2013) 76:279–83. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.04.017
    1. Truman AM, Tilly JL, Woods DC. Ovarian regeneration: the potential for stem cell contribution in the postnatal ovary to sustained endocrine function. Mol Cell Endocrinol. (2017) 445:74–84. 10.1016/j.mce.2016.10.012
    1. Silvestris E, Cafforio P, D'Oronzo S, Felici C, Silvestris F, Loverro G. In vitro differentiation of human oocyte-like cells from oogonial stem cells: single-cell isolation and molecular characterization. Hum Reprod. (2018) 33:464–73. 10.1093/humrep/dex377
    1. Herraiz S, Buigues A, Diaz-Garcia C, Romeu M, Martinez S, Gomez-Segui I, et al. . Fertility rescue and ovarian follicle growth promotion by bone marrow stem cell infusion. Fertil Steril. (2018) 109:908–18.e2. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.004
    1. Chavarro JE, Rich-Edwards JW, Rosner BA, Willett WC. Diet and lifestyle in the prevention of ovulatory disorder infertility. Obstet Gynecol. (2007) 110:1050–8. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000287293.25465.e1
    1. Lobel M, Cannella DL, Graham JE, DeVincent C, Schneider J, Meyer B, et al. . Pregnancy-specific stress, prenatal health behaviors, and birth outcomes. Health Psychol. (2008) 27:604–15. 10.1037/a0013242
    1. Silvestris E, de Pergola G, Rosania R, Loverro G. Obesity as disruptor of the female fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2018) 16:22. 10.1186/s12958-018-0336-z
    1. Garcia D, Vassena R, Prat A, Vernaeve V. Poor knowledge of age-related fertility decline and assisted reproduction among healthcare professionals. Reprod Biomed Online (2017) 34:32–7. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.09.013
    1. Nouri K, Huber D, Walch K, Promberger R, Buerkle B, Ott J, et al. . Fertility awareness among medical and non-medical students: a case-control study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2014) 12:94. 10.1186/1477-7827-12-94
    1. Fleming TP, Watkins AJ, Velazquez MA, Mathers JC, Prentice AM, Stephenson J, et al. . Origins of lifetime health around the time of conception: causes and consequences. Lancet (2018) 391:1842–52. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30312-X

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera