GLUT1, LDHA, and MCT4 Expression Is Deregulated in Cervical Cancer and Precursor Lesions.

Metabolic reprogramming is typical in cancerous cells and is required for proliferation and cellular survival. In addition, oncoproteins of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) are involved in this process. This study evaluated the relationship between glucose transporter I (GLUT1), lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA), and monocarboxylate transporter type 4 (MCT4) expression and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) with HR-HPV infection. The protein expression was evaluated in women with CIN I (n=20), CIN II/III (n=16), or ICC (n=24) by immunohistochemistry. The protein expression was analyzed qualitatively by van Zummeren score and quantitatively by Image ProPlus 6 software. LDHA expression increases in HPV-16 infection. In the CIN I group, GLUT1 immunostaining has a 35% protein expression at the membrane level at more than two thirds of the epithelium, which increased by 21.25% more in CIN II/III in more than two thirds of the epithelium. While LDHA and MCT4 in CIN I mostly do not present immunostaining, or this was only limited to the basal stratum, this expression is increased in CIN II/III and ICC cases. The GLUT1, LDHA, and MCT4 expression increased in ICC. The overexpression in high-grade CIN with HR-HPV infection shows a higher risk for cervical carcinoma progression.

Colony stimulating factor-1 and leukemia inhibitor factor expression from current-cycle cannula isolated endometrial cells are associated with increased endometrial receptivity and pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Poor endometrial quality is associated with more than a third of embryo implantation failures. Current ultrasonography technology lacks the capacity to determine efficiently the endometrial receptivity during ongoing cycle transfers. We analyzed the relationship between the gene expression profile associated with implantation and clinical pregnancy from endometrial cells taken during embryo transfer. METHODS: Seventy-six patients submitted to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol, in vitro fertilization, and good quality embryos were collected (morphological assessment). Endometrial samples were taken with ultrasonography guidance and cells were Hematoxylin and Eosin stained for morphological identification. Total RNA was extracted and the expression of Mucin 1 (MUC1), Homeobox A10 (HOXA-10), Leukemia Inhibitor Factor (LIF), Colony Stimulating Factor-1 (CSF-1), and ribosomal 18 s (endogenous control) were analyzed using RT-qPCR. Presence of a gestational sac, ß-hGC (≥10 mIU/mL on Day 20), and a fetal heartbeat were used to determine a positive embryo implantation and pregnancy. RESULTS: Samples collected from same cycle embryo transfer showed clear morphological staining for endometrial cells (80-90% of the cells). Cells in the sample were molecularly identified as the endometrium (HOXA-10 positive and MUC-1 negative). CSF-1 expression was 4.55-fold and LIF expression was 12.25-fold higher in patients who became pregnant. Both increases were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Here, we provide evidence of a new method to assess endometrial receptivity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the expression profile, based on LIF and CSF-1, showed a difference between a receptive and a non-receptive endometrium.

A simple, less invasive stripper micropipetter-based technique for day 3 embryo biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is an important procedure for in vitro fertilization (IVF). A key step of PGS, blastomere removal, is abundant with many technical issues. The aim of this study was to compare a more simple procedure based on the Stipper Micropipetter, named S-biopsy, to the conventional aspiration method. METHODS: On Day 3, 368 high-quality embryos (>7 cells on Day3 with <10% fragmentation) were collected from 38 women. For each patient, their embryos were equally separated between the conventional method (n = 188) and S-biopsy method (n = 180). The conventional method was performed using a standardized protocol. For the S-biopsy method, a laser was used to remove a significantly smaller portion of the zona pellucida. Afterwards, the complete embryo was aspirated with a Stripper Micropipetter, forcing the removal of the blastomere. Selected blastomeres went to PGS using CGH microarrays. Embryo integrity and blastocyst formation were assessed on Day 5. Differences between groups were assessed by either the Mann-Whitney test or Fisher Exact test. RESULTS: Both methods resulted in the removal of only one blastomere. The S-biopsy and the conventional method did not differ in terms of affecting embryo integrity (95.0% vs. 95.7%) or blastocyst formation (72.7% vs. 70.7%). PGS analysis indicated that aneuploidy rate were similar between the two methods (63.1% vs. 65.2%). However, the time required to perform the S-biopsy method (179.2 ± 17.5 s) was significantly shorter (5-fold) than the conventional method. CONCLUSION: The S-biopsy method is comparable to the conventional method that is used to remove a blastomere for PGS, but requires less time. Furthermore, due to the simplicity of the S-biopsy technique, this method is more ideal for IVF laboratories.