title: Quality evaluation of IVM embryo and imprinting genes of IVM babies.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Oxygen consumption rates of human embryos derived from in vitro matured (IVM) oocytes and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) were compared with scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) non-invasively in order to answer why embryos from IVM oocytes have lower developmental potential. We also analyzed the epigenetic disorders for IVM babies born in our clinic.
  
  
  METHODS
  The oxygen consumption rate was calculated with the SECM system for different maturation stages of human oocytes, IVM and COH embryos. Blood from umbilical cords of IVM babies was collected to examine the imprinting genes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were no significant differences in oxygen consumption of embryos at each cleavage stage between IVM and COH (range 0.26-0.56 × 10(14)/mol S(-1)). There also was no abnormality found in expression of imprinting genes in IVM babies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There are no differences in terms of oxygen consumption between embryos derived from IVM and COH. There was no imprinting gene disorder founded from IVM babies.
authors: Yoshida Ladies Clinic, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Sendai, Japan. hiroaki@yoshida-lc.jp
authors: Hiroaki
authors: H
authors: Yoshida
authors: Hiroyuki
authors: H
authors: Abe
authors: Takahiro
authors: T
authors: Arima
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D005307:Fertilization in Vitro / Q000379:methods*; D005312:Fetal Blood / Q000378:metabolism; D018392:Genomic Imprinting; D006801:Humans; D059471:In Vitro Oocyte Maturation Techniques; D007223:Infant; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D009865:Oocytes / Q000166:cytology / Q000254:growth & development; D010062:Ovulation Induction; D010101:Oxygen Consumption / Q000502:physiology*; D011247:Pregnancy
references: J Exp Biol. 1999 Jan;202(Pt 2):211-8
references: 9851909
references: Mol Reprod Dev. 1999 Jun;53(2):171-8
references: 10331455
references: J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1982 Oct;71:75-82
references: 6296261
references: Hum Reprod Update. 1998 Mar-Apr;4(2):103-20
references: 9683349
references: Hum Reprod. 1986 Apr;1(3):183-4
references: 3624426
references: Fertil Steril. 2009 Feb;91(2):305-15
references: 19201275
references: J Reprod Fertil. 1994 Jan;100(1):257-62
references: 8182598
references: Hum Reprod. 2000 Jun;15(6):1396-9
references: 10831576
references: Reproduction. 2003 Sep;126(3):299-308
references: 12968937
references: Reprod Biomed Online. 2002 Nov-Dec;5(3):328-50
references: 12470535
references: Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Nov 1;16(21):2542-51
references: 17636251
references: J Reprod Fertil. 2000 Jan;118(1):47-55
references: 10793625
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988;541:259-74
references: 3195909
references: Reproduction. 2005 Nov;130(5):669-79
references: 16264096