Influx of zwitterionic buffer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) membrane piercing alters the transcriptome of human oocytes

Robert J Mendola; Leelabati Biswas; Karen Schindler; Renee H Walmsley; Helena Russell; Marlane Angle; G John Garrisi

doi:10.1007/s10815-024-03064-2

Influx of zwitterionic buffer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) membrane piercing alters the transcriptome of human oocytes

J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024 Mar 4. doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03064-2. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Robert J Mendola¹, Leelabati Biswas^{2

3}, Karen Schindler², Renee H Walmsley⁴, Helena Russell⁵, Marlane Angle⁵, G John Garrisi⁴

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science (IRMS) at Saint Barnabas, Livingston, NJ, USA. Bmendy01@msn.com.
² Department of Genetics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
³ Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
⁴ Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science (IRMS) at Saint Barnabas, Livingston, NJ, USA.
⁵ Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS), Norfolk, VA, USA.

PMID: 38436798
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03064-2

Abstract

Purpose/study question: Does piercing oocyte membranes during ICSI allow the influx of surrounding zwitterionic buffer into human oocytes and result in altered developmental competence?

Methods: Human oocytes directed to IRB-approved research were used to determine the unrestricted influx of surrounding buffer into the oocyte after piercing of membranes via confocal fluorescence microscopy (n = 80 human MII oocytes) and the influence of the select buffer influx of HEPES, MOPS, and bicarbonate buffer on the oocyte transcriptome using ultra-low input RNA sequencing (n = 40 human MII oocytes).

Results: Piercing membranes of human MII oocytes during sham-ICSI resulted in the unrestricted influx of surrounding culture buffer into the oocyte that was beyond technician control. Transcriptome analysis revealed statistically significant decreased cytoskeletal transcripts in the pierced buffer cohorts, higher levels of embryo competency transcripts (IGF2 and G6PD) in the bicarbonate buffer cohort, higher levels of stress-induced transcriptional repressor transcripts (MAF1) in the HEPES and MOPS cohorts, and decreased levels of numerous chromosomal maintenance transcripts (SMC3) in the HEPES buffer cohort. The HEPES buffer cohort also revealed higher levels of transcripts suggesting increased oxidative (GPX1) and lysosomal stress (LAMP1).

Conclusion: The influence of zwitterionic buffer on intrinsic cellular mechanisms provides numerous concerns for their use in IVF clinical applications. The primary concern is the ICSI procedure, in which the surrounding buffer is allowed influx into the oocytes after membrane piercing. Selecting a physiological bicarbonate buffer may reduce imposed stress on oocytes, resulting in improved embryo development and clinical results because intracellular MOPS, and especially HEPES, may negatively impact intrinsic biological mechanisms, as revealed by transcriptome changes. These findings further support the utilization of bicarbonate buffer as the oocyte-holding medium during ICSI.

Keywords: Bicarbonate buffer ICSI; HEPES; ICSI; MOPS; Oocyte transcriptome; Zwitterionic buffer.