Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study
- PMID: 33746576
- PMCID: PMC7976567
- DOI: 10.7150/ijms.55955
Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study
Abstract
Background: Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) is an alternative in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocol. However, limited data showed the genes expression of cumulus cells (CCs) in LPOS. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate CC genes expression between LPOS and follicular-phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) in poor ovarian responders (PORs) undergoing IVF cycles. Methods: This was a prospective non-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03238833). A total of 36 PORs who met the Bologna criteria and underwent IVF cycles were enrolled. Fifteen PORs were allocated to the LPOS group, and 21 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. The levels of CC genes involved in inflammation (CXCL1, CXCL3, TNF, PTGES), oxidative phosphorylation (NDUFB7, NDUFA4L2, SLC25A27), apoptosis (DAPK3, BCL6B) and metabolism (PCK1, LDHC) were analyzed using real-time quantitative PCR and compared between the two groups. Results: The number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, day-3 embryos and top-quality day-3 embryos, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were similar between the two groups except for significantly high progesterone levels in the LPOS group. The mRNA expression levels of CXCL1 (0.51 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and PTGES (0.30 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The LPOS group had significantly lower mRNA expression of NDUFB7 (0.12 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and NDUFA4L2 (0.33 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) than the FPOS group. DAPK3 (3.81 vs 1.00, p < 0.05) and BCL6B (2.59 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) mRNA expression was significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Increased expression of PCK1 (3.13 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) and decreased expression of LDHC (0.12 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) were observed in the LPOS group compared to the FPOS group. Conclusions: Our data revealed different CC genes expression involving in inflammation, oxidative phosphorylation, apoptosis and metabolism between LPOS and FPOS in PORs. However, the results are non-conclusive; further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the results.
Keywords: cumulus cells; follicular phase ovarian stimulation; gene expression; luteal phase ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian responders.
© The author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation May Improve Oocyte Retrieval and Oocyte Quality in Poor Ovarian Responders Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study.Adv Ther. 2018 Jun;35(6):847-856. doi: 10.1007/s12325-018-0713-1. Epub 2018 Jun 4. Adv Ther. 2018. PMID: 29869107
-
Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: results of a randomized controlled trial.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 7;18(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00570-7. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020. PMID: 32033610 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: A retrospective study.Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;55(1):50-4. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.07.001. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 26927248
-
Flexible ovarian stimulation in a poor responder: a case report and literature review.Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Apr;26(4):378-83. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.020. Epub 2012 Dec 8. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013. PMID: 23497915 Review.
-
New stimulation regimens: endogenous and exogenous progesterone use to block the LH surge during ovarian stimulation for IVF.Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Mar 1;23(2):211-220. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw047. Hum Reprod Update. 2017. PMID: 28062551 Review.
Cited by
-
Pregnancy Outcomes in Double Stimulation versus Two Consecutive Mild Stimulations for IVF in Poor Ovarian Responders.J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 16;11(22):6780. doi: 10.3390/jcm11226780. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 36431256 Free PMC article.
-
Researching the Phenomenon of Poor Ovarian Responders and Management Strategies in IVF: A Narrative Review.Acta Med Acad. 2022 Aug;51(2):108-122. doi: 10.5644/ama2006-124.379. Acta Med Acad. 2022. PMID: 36318003 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparison of luteal phase stimulation with follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian response: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.Contracept Reprod Med. 2024 Feb 18;9(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s40834-024-00265-z. Contracept Reprod Med. 2024. PMID: 38368372 Free PMC article.
-
Smaller follicle diameter improves outcomes in natural LPOS: a retrospective cohort study.J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025 Apr;42(4):1287-1295. doi: 10.1007/s10815-025-03421-9. Epub 2025 Feb 11. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025. PMID: 39934463
-
Dehydroepiandrosterone Shifts Energy Metabolism to Increase Mitochondrial Biogenesis in Female Fertility with Advancing Age.Nutrients. 2021 Jul 17;13(7):2449. doi: 10.3390/nu13072449. Nutrients. 2021. PMID: 34371958 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- 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. - PubMed
-
- Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:73–91. - PubMed
-
- Cakmak H, Katz A, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1673–80. - PubMed
-
- von Wolff M, Thaler CJ, Frambach T, Zeeb C, Lawrenz B, Popovici RM. et al. Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1360–5. - PubMed
-
- Martinez F, Clua E, Devesa M, Rodriguez I, Arroyo G, Gonzalez C. et al. Comparison of starting ovarian stimulation on day 2 versus day 15 of the menstrual cycle in the same oocyte donor and pregnancy rates among the corresponding recipients of vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1307–11. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous