A systematic review of transcriptomic studies of the human endometrium reveals inconsistently reported differentially expressed genes.

Evangeline R Walker, Mollie McGrane, John D Aplin, Daniel R Brison, Peter T Ruane
{"title":"A systematic review of transcriptomic studies of the human endometrium reveals inconsistently reported differentially expressed genes.","authors":"Evangeline R Walker,&nbsp;Mollie McGrane,&nbsp;John D Aplin,&nbsp;Daniel R Brison,&nbsp;Peter T Ruane","doi":"10.1530/RAF-22-0115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genome-wide analysis of gene expression has been widely applied to study the endometrium, although to our knowledge no systematic reviews have been performed. Here, we identified 74 studies that described transcriptomes from whole (unprocessed) endometrium samples and found that these fitted into three broad investigative categories; endometrium across the menstrual cycle, endometrium in pathology, and endometrium during hormone treatment. Notably, key participant information such as menstrual cycle length and body mass index was often not reported. Fertility status was frequently not defined and fertility-related pathologies, such as recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss, were variably defined, while hormone treatments differed between almost every study. A range of 1307-3637 reported differentially expressed genes (DEG) were compared in 4-7 studies in five sub-categories; (i) secretory vs proliferative stage endometrium, (ii) mid-secretory vs early secretory stage endometrium, (iii) mid-secretory endometrium from ovarian stimulation-treated participants vs controls, (iv) mid-secretory endometrium from RIF patients vs controls, and (v) mid-secretory eutopic endometrium from endometriosis patients vs controls. Only the first two sub-categories yielded consistently reported DEG between ≥3 studies, albeit in small numbers (<40), and these were enriched in developmental process and immune response annotations. This systematic review, though not PROSPERO registered, reveals that limited demographic detail, variable fertility definitions and differing hormone treatments in endometrial transcriptomic studies hinders their comparison, and that the large majority of reported DEG do not advance the identification of underlying biological mechanisms. Future studies should apply network biology approaches and experimental validation to establish causal gene expression signatures.</p>","PeriodicalId":21128,"journal":{"name":"Reproduction & Fertility","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10388686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproduction & Fertility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-22-0115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Genome-wide analysis of gene expression has been widely applied to study the endometrium, although to our knowledge no systematic reviews have been performed. Here, we identified 74 studies that described transcriptomes from whole (unprocessed) endometrium samples and found that these fitted into three broad investigative categories; endometrium across the menstrual cycle, endometrium in pathology, and endometrium during hormone treatment. Notably, key participant information such as menstrual cycle length and body mass index was often not reported. Fertility status was frequently not defined and fertility-related pathologies, such as recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss, were variably defined, while hormone treatments differed between almost every study. A range of 1307-3637 reported differentially expressed genes (DEG) were compared in 4-7 studies in five sub-categories; (i) secretory vs proliferative stage endometrium, (ii) mid-secretory vs early secretory stage endometrium, (iii) mid-secretory endometrium from ovarian stimulation-treated participants vs controls, (iv) mid-secretory endometrium from RIF patients vs controls, and (v) mid-secretory eutopic endometrium from endometriosis patients vs controls. Only the first two sub-categories yielded consistently reported DEG between ≥3 studies, albeit in small numbers (<40), and these were enriched in developmental process and immune response annotations. This systematic review, though not PROSPERO registered, reveals that limited demographic detail, variable fertility definitions and differing hormone treatments in endometrial transcriptomic studies hinders their comparison, and that the large majority of reported DEG do not advance the identification of underlying biological mechanisms. Future studies should apply network biology approaches and experimental validation to establish causal gene expression signatures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对人类子宫内膜转录组学研究的系统回顾揭示了不一致的差异表达基因的报道。
基因表达的全基因组分析已广泛应用于子宫内膜研究,尽管据我们所知尚未进行系统综述。在这里,我们确定了74项研究,这些研究描述了来自整个(未经处理的)子宫内膜样本的转录组,并发现这些研究适用于三个广泛的调查类别;月经周期中的子宫内膜,病理中的子宫内膜,激素治疗中的子宫内膜。值得注意的是,关键的参与者信息,如月经周期长度和体重指数往往没有报告。生育状况通常没有定义,生育相关的病理,如复发性植入失败(RIF)和复发性妊娠丢失,定义不一,而几乎每项研究的激素治疗方法都不同。在5个亚类的4-7个研究中比较了1307-3637个报告的差异表达基因(DEG);(i)分泌期与增殖期子宫内膜,(ii)中期分泌期与早期分泌期子宫内膜,(iii)卵巢刺激治疗参与者与对照组的中期分泌子宫内膜,(iv) RIF患者与对照组的中期分泌子宫内膜,以及(v)子宫内膜异位症患者与对照组的中期分泌异位子宫内膜。只有前两个亚类在≥3项研究中一致报告了DEG,尽管数量很少(
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The (cost-) effectiveness Of Surgical excision of Colorectal endometriosis compared to ART treatment trAjectory (TOSCA study) - a study protocol. Quality of fresh and cryopreserved bovine sperm is reduced by BPA and BPF exposure. Presence of KREMEN receptors for DKK1 in the preimplantation bovine embryo. Role of oxidative stress in male infertility. Impact of vitamin B12 on the reproductive health of women with sickle cell disease: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1