Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T11:20:58.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

32 - Safety of ovarian stimulation

from Section 5 - Pathology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2013

By
Dominic Stoop ,
Ellen Anckaert  and
Johan Smitz
Edited by
Alan Trounson ,
Roger Gosden  and
Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter
Dominic Stoop
Affiliation:
Centre for Reproductive Medicine, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Ellen Anckaert
Affiliation:
Follicle Biology Laboratory, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Johan Smitz
Affiliation:
Follicle Biology Laboratory, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Alan Trounson
Affiliation:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Roger Gosden
Affiliation:
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Cornell University, New York
Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ovarian stimulation exposes the body to supraphysiological levels of steroid hormones. The most serious complication related to that stimulation is the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) characterized by the shift of protein-rich fluid from the intravascular space to the third space, mainly the abdominal cavity. Two main clinical forms of OHSS, the early and the late, are distinguished by their time of onset and by the origin of the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) triggering that induces this complication. Early OHSS usually occurs within 9 days of oocyte retrieval in response to exogenous hCG, while endogenous hCG of early pregnancy or exogenous hCG for luteal phase support mainly causes the late OHSS.

According to the literature, the incidence of moderate cases of OHSS is about 5%, whereas in 2% (on average) of cycles hospitalization is required [1, 2]. Apart from the physical discomfort, the disorder constitutes a serious health risk and may even be fatal. Reports on maternal mortality rates from the Netherlands and the UK indicate an incidence of about 3 deaths per 100000 cycles performed [3, 4]. In view of the rapid expansion of assisted reproductive treatments, the total number of maternal deaths related to OHSS may be far greater than initially expected [5]. In this chapter, we give an overview of the approaches available to limit or even completely prevent the occurrence of this complication.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biology and Pathology of the Oocyte
Role in Fertility, Medicine and Nuclear Reprograming
 , pp. 371 - 383
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Papanikolaou, EG, Tournaye, H, Verpoest, W, et al. Early and late ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: early pregnancy outcome and profile. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 636–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delvigne, A.Symposium: Update on prediction and management of OHSS. Epidemiology of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, G.Saving mothers’ lives: confidential enquiry into maternal and child health 2003–5. Int J Obstet Anesth 2008; 17: 103–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braat, DDM, Schutte, JM, Bernardus, RE, et al. Maternal death related to IVF in the Netherlands 1984–2008. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1782–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C.An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2593–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P, Quartarolo, J, Papanikolaou, EG.Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 389–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Pozzobon, C, Kolibianakis, EM, et al. Incidence and prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women undergoing gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 112–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillier, SG.Ovarian manipulation with pure gonadotrophins. J Clin Endocrinol 1990; 127: 1–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Hillier, SG.Ovarian stimulation with recombinant gonadotrophins: LH as an adjunct to FSH. In: Jacobs, HS, ed. The New Frontier in Ovulation InductionCarnforth, UK: Parthenon. 1993; 39–47.Google Scholar
Yong, EL, Baird, DT, Yates, R, et al. Hormonal regulation of the growth and steroidogenic function of human granulosa cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1992; 74: 842–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yong, ET, Baird, DT, Hillier, SG.Mediation of gonadotrophin-stimulated growth and differentiation of human granulosa cells by adenosine-3′,5′-monophosphate: one molecule, two messages. Clin Endocrinol 1992; 37: 51–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, CY, Ziebe, S.Serum levels of free androstenedione, testosterone and oestradiol are lower in the follicular phase of conceptional than of non-conceptional cycles after ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1365–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baird, DT, Campbell, BK.Supplementation with recombinant LH to reduce multiple folliculogenesis and ovarian hyperstimulation. In: Filicori, M, Flamigni, C, eds. Ovulation Induction Update 1998, The Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Ovulation Induction, Bologna, Italy, 12–13 September 1997. Canforth, Lancs, UK: The Parthenon Publishing Group. 1998; 159–64.Google Scholar
Lunenfeld, B.Stimulations de l'ovulation: une nouvelle approche basée sur desdonnées physiologiques et cliniques récentes. Perspectives d'avenir.Contraception, Fertilité, Sexualité 1993; 2 (Suppl. 4): 1–7.Google Scholar
Stokman, PG, de Leeuw, R, van den Wijngaard, HA, et al. Human chorionic gonadotropin in commercial human menopausal gonadotropin preparations. Fertil Steril 1993; 60: 175–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filicori, M, Cognigni, GE, Tabarelli, C, et al. Stimulation and growth of antral ovarian follicles by selective LH activity administration in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87: 1156–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfenson, C, Groisman, J, Couto, AS, et al. Batch-to-batch consistency of human-derived gonadotrophin preparations compared with recombinant preparations. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 442–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, AN, Devroey, P, Arce, JC.Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: arandomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3217–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smitz, J, Andersen, AN, Devroey, P, et al. Endocrine profile in serum and follicular fluid differs after ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH in IVF patients. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 676–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platteau, P, Nyboe Andersen, A, Loft, A, et al. Highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 190–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Pellicer, A, Nyboe, AA, et al. A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 561–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platteau, P, Smitz, J, Albano, C, et al. Exogenous luteinizing hormone activity may influence the treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization but not in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1401–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziebe, S, Lundin, K, Janssens, R, et al. Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2404–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platteau, P, Nyboe Andersen, A, Balen, A, et al. Similar ovulation rates, but different follicular development with highly purified menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH in WHO Group II anovulatory infertility: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1798–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Wely, M, Kwan, I, van der Veen, F, et al. Recombinant FSH versus urinary gonadotrophins for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF or ICSI cycles. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2009; Suppl 1: i134.
van Wely, M, Kwan, I, Burt, AL, et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2: CD005354.Google Scholar
Arce, JC, Smitz, J.Exogenous hCG activity, but not endogenous LH activity, is positively associated with live birth rates in anovulatory infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2011; 14: 192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loumaye, E, Engrand, P, Shoham, Z, et al. Clinical evidence for an LH ‘ceiling’ effect induced by administration of recombinant human LH during the late follicular phase of stimulated cycles in World Health Organization type I and type II anovulation. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 314–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugues, JN, Soussis, J, Calderon, I, et al. Does the addition of recombinant LH inWHO group II anovulatory women over-responding to FSH treatment reduce the number of developing follicles? A dose-finding study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 629–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, JA, Yarmolinskaya, MI, Dumoulin, JC, et al. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 961–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thuesen, LL, Loft, A, Egeberg, AN, et al. A randomized controlled dose-response pilot study of addition of hCG to recombinant FSH during controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 3074–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, SM, Yates, RW, Lyall, H, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 867–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anckaert, E, Smitz, J, Schiettecatte, J, et al. The value of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in the long GnRH agonist protocol: association with ovarian response and gonadotrophin-dose adjustments. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, RJ, Zegers-Hochschild, F, Salle, BS, et al. Repeated ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa in patients in a GnRH antagonist protocol: no concern for immunogenicity. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmoud Youssef, MA, van Wely, M, Aboulfoutouh, I, et al. Is there a place for corifollitropin alfa in IVF/ICSI cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 876–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Inany, HG, Abou-Setta, AM, Aboulghar, M. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD001750.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Collins, J, Tarlatzis, BC, et al. Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2006; 12: 651–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Papanikolaou, EG, Tournaye, H, et al. Triggering final oocyte maturation using different doses of human chorionic gonadotropin: a randomized pilot study in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 1382–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kummer, N, Benadiva, C, Feinn, R, et al. Factors that predict the probability of a successful clinical outcome after induction of oocyte maturation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 63–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kol, S.Luteolysis induced by a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the key to prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P, Bredkjaer, HE, Bungum, L, et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1213–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Schultze-Mosgau, A, Schroer, A, et al. A lower ongoing pregnancy rate can be expected when GnRH agonist is used for triggering final oocyte maturation instead of HCG in patients undergoing IVF with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 2887–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engmann, L, DiLuigi, A, Schmidt, D, et al. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P, Bungum, L, Bungum, M, et al. Rescue of corpus luteum function with peri-ovulatory HCG supplementation in IVF/ICSI GnRH antagonist cycles in which ovulation was triggered with a GnRH agonist: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13: 173–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P.Luteal phase rescue in high-risk OHSS patients by GnRHa triggering in combination with low-dose HCG: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18: 630–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P, Ejdrup Bredkjaer, H, Westergaard, LG, et al. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 847–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Comparison of “triggers” using leuprolide acetate alone or in combination with low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2715–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P.Agonist trigger: what is the best approach? Agonist trigger and low dose hCG0. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 529–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Velasco, JA.Agonist trigger: what is the best approach? Agonist trigger with vitrification of oocytes or embryos. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 527–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A, de Los Santos, MJ, Castellò, D, et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1138–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 344–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 516–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rienzi, L, Romano, S, Albricci, L, et al. Embryo development of fresh “versus” vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 66–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A, Meseguer, M, Remohí, J, et al. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 2239–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, F, Rodríguez, DB, Buxaderas, R, et al. GnRH antagonist rescue of a long-protocol IVF cycle and GnRH agonist trigger to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: three case reports. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2432.e17–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polyzos, NP, Stoop, D, Blockeel, C, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone for the assessment of ovarian response in GnRH-antagonist-treated oocyte donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24: 532–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoop, D, Vercammen, L, Polyzos, NP, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval on reproductive outcome in oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 1328–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, J, Oktay, K.Ovarian stimulation and fertility preservation with the use of aromatase inhibitors in women with breast cancer. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1363–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichman, DE, Davis, OK, Zaninovic, N, et al. Fertility preservation using controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and oocyte cryopreservation in a premenarcheal female with myelodysplastic syndrome. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1225–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caligara, C, Navarro, J, Vargas, G, et al. The effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation in donors. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2320–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bukulmez, O, Li, Q, Carr, BR, et al. Repetitive oocyte donation does not decrease serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 905–12.
van Leeuwen, FE, Klip, H, Mooij, TM, et al. Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 3456–65.
Yil-Kuha, A-N, Gissler, M, Klemetti, R, et al. Cancer morbidity in a cohort of 9175 Finnish women treated for infertility. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1149–55.
Li, E.Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3: 662–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reik, W, Walter, J.Genomic imprinting: parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2: 21–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirasawa, R, Feil, R. Genomic imprinting and human disease. Essays Biochem 2010; 48: 187–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, S, Jacobsen, SE, Reik, W.Epigenetic reprogramming in plant and animal development. Science 2010; 330: 622–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obata, Y, Kono, T.Maternal primary imprinting is established at a specific time for each gene throughout oocyte growth. J Biol Chem 2002; 277: 5285–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucifero, D, Mann, MR, Bartolomei MS, et al. Gene-specific timing and epigenetic memory in oocyte imprinting. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 13: 839–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiura, H, Obata, Y, Komiyama, J, et al. Oocyte growth-dependent progression of maternal imprinting in mice. Genes Cells 2006; 11: 353–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howell, CY, Bestor, TH, Ding, F, et al. Genomic imprinting disrupted by a maternal effect mutation in the DnmtI gene. Cell 2001; 104: 829–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, Ito, M, Zhou, F, et al. A maternal-zygotic effect gene, Zfp57, maintains both maternal and paternal imprints. Dev Cell 2008; 15: 547–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, T, Arai, Y, Umehara, H, et al. PGC7/Stella protects against DNA demethylation in early embryogenesis. Nat Cell Biol 2007; 9: 64–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reese, KJ, Lin, S, Verona, RI, et al. Maintenance of paternal methylation and repression of the imprinted H19 gene requires MBD3. PLoS Genet 2007; 3: e137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Montfoort, APA, Hanssen, LLP, de Sutter, P, et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18: 171–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidegaard, O, Pinborg, A, Andersen, AN.Imprinting diseases and IVF: Danish National IVF cohort study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 950–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doornbos, ME, Maas, SM, McDonnell, J, et al. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2476–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, MP, DeBaun, MR, Mitsuya, K, et al. Loss of imprinting of a paternally expressed transcript, with antisense orientation to KVLQTI, occurs frequently in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and is independent of insulin-like growth factor II imprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 5203–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, JR, Smallwood, A, Harper, A, et al. Epigenotype-phenotype correlations in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. J Med Genet 2000; 37: 921–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katari, S, Turan, N, Bibikova, M, et al. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18: 3769–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denomme, MM, Mann, MRW.Genomic imprints as a model for the analysis of epigenetic stability during assisted reproductive technologies. Reproduction 2012; 144: 393–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, A, Otsu, E, Negishi, H, et al. DNA methylation of imprinted loci in superovulated oocytes. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 26–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghol, N, Lornage, J, Blachere, T, et al. Epigenetic status of the H19 locus in human oocytes following in vitro maturation. Genomics 2006; 87: 417–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoueiry, R, Ibala-Rhomdane, S, Méry, L, et al. Dynamic CpG methylation of the KCNQIOTI gene during maturation of human oocytes. J Med Genet 2008; 45: 583–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, W, Haaf, T.Aberrant methylation patterns at the two-cell stage as an indicator of early developmental failure. Mol Reprod Dev 2002; 63: 329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denomme, MM, Zhang, L, Mann, MR.Embryonic imprinting perturbations do not originate from superovulation-induced defects in DNA methylation acquisition. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 734–8.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Hajj, N, Trapphoff, T, Linke, M, et al. Limiting dilution bisulfite (pyro)sequencing reveals parent-specific methylation patterns in single early mouse embryos and bovine oocytes. Epigenetics 2011; 6: 1176–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anckaert, E, Adriaenssens, T, Romero, S, et al. Unaltered imprinting establisment of key imprinted genes in mouse oocytes after follicle culture under variable follicle-stimulating hormone exposure. Int J Dev Biol 2009; 53: 541–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauque, P, Jouannet, P, Lesaffre, C, et al. Assisted reproductive technology affects developmental kinetics, H19 imprinting control region methylation and H19 gene expression in individual mouse embryos. BMC Dev Biol 2007; 7: 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortier, AL, Lopes, FL, Darricarrère, N, et al. Superovulation alters the expression of imprinted genes in the midgestation mouse placenta. Hum Mol Genet 2008; 17: 1653–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Market-Velker, BA, Zhang, L, Magri, LS, et al. Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19: 36–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Waal, E, Yamazaki, Y, Ingale, P, et al. Gonadotropin stimulation contributes to an increased incidence of epimutations in ICSI-derived mice. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21: 4460–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouder, C, Deutsch, S, Paoloni-Giacobino, A.Superovulation in mice alters the methylation pattern of imprinted genes in the sperm of the offspring. Reprod Toxicol 2009; 28: 536–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×