Journal of Ovarian Research (May 2024)

Metabolic landscape and pathogenic insights: a comprehensive analysis of high ovarian response in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

  • Ling-Ling Ruan,
  • Xing-Yu Lv,
  • Yu-Lin Hu,
  • Ming-Xing Chen,
  • Jing-Tang,
  • Zhao-Hui Zhong,
  • Mei-Hua Bao,
  • Li-Juan Fu,
  • Xin Luo,
  • Shao-Min Yu,
  • Qi Wan,
  • Yu-Bin Ding

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-024-01411-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background In the realm of assisted reproduction, a subset of infertile patients demonstrates high ovarian response following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), with approximately 29.7% facing the risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS). Management of OHSS risk often necessitates embryo transfer cancellation, leading to delayed prospects of successful pregnancy and significant psychological distress. Regrettably, these patients have received limited research attention, particularly regarding their metabolic profile. In this study, we aim to utilize gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to reveal these patients’ unique serum metabolic profiles and provide insights into the disease’s pathogenesis. Methods We categorized 145 infertile women into two main groups: the CON infertility group from tubal infertility patients and the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) infertility group. Within these groups, we further subdivided them into four categories: patients with normal ovarian response (CON-NOR group), patients with high ovarian response and at risk for OHSS (CON-HOR group) within the CON group, as well as patients with normal ovarian response (PCOS-NOR group) and patients with high ovarian response and at risk for OHSS (PCOS-HOR group) within the PCOS group. Serum metabolic profiles were analyzed using GC-MS. The risk criteria for OHSS were: the number of developing follicles > 20, peak Estradiol (E2) > 4000pg/mL, and Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) levels > 4.5ng/mL. Results The serum metabolomics analysis revealed four different metabolites within the CON group and 14 within the PCOS group. Remarkably, 10-pentadecenoic acid emerged as a discernible risk metabolite for the CON-HOR, also found to be a differential metabolite between CON-NOR and PCOS groups. cysteine and 5-methoxytryptamine were also identified as risk metabolites for the PCOS-HOR. Furthermore, KEGG analysis unveiled significant enrichment of the aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis pathway among the metabolites differing between PCOS-NOR and PCOS-HOR. Conclusion Our study highlights significant metabolite differences between patients with normal ovarian response and those with high ovarian response and at risk for OHSS within both the tubal infertility control group and PCOS infertility group. Importantly, we observe metabolic similarities between patients with PCOS and those with a high ovarian response but without PCOS, suggesting potential parallels in their underlying causes.

Keywords