Usage Information
Abstract
BACKGROUND In vitro fertilization (IVF) culminates in embryo transfer into a hormonally primed endometrium, often via a programmed cycle (PC) regimen postulated to influence hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) risk. We thus generated a single-cell atlas of PC endometrium to define cell type–specific differences relative to natural cycle (NC) endometrium and evaluated whether PC-associated modulation of the window of implantation (WOI) endometrium influences angiogenic balance in pregnancy.METHODS snRNA-seq of prospectively collected PC and NC WOI endometrium. An independent prospective cohort of 548 singleton pregnancies was separately analyzed for maternal serum angiogenic markers (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1; placental growth factor) and HDP incidence in PC- versus NC-conceived pregnancies, adjusting for clinical confounders and IVF use.RESULTS Prominent transcriptomic differences were observed between PC (n = 7; 48,843 nuclei) and NC (n = 9; 44,230 nuclei) WOI endometrium, particularly in glandular epithelium (682 up- and 979 downregulated genes; Padj < 0.05) and stromal fibroblasts (108 up- and 168 downregulated). PC endometrium showed reduced uterine natural killer cell abundance, potentially from CXCL14 downregulation. Functional enrichment revealed downregulation of embryo implantation, angiogenesis, and extracellular matrix remodeling pathways in PC. Altered cell-cell signaling in decidualization, angiogenesis and inflammatory response were also observed. Despite these WOI perturbations, PC-conceived pregnancies were not associated with early gestational angiogenic imbalance or increased HDP risk.CONCLUSION PC endometrial preparation induced distinct cellular and signaling alterations in the WOI but was not associated with subsequent development of angiogenic imbalance or HDP, thereby underscoring the resilience and adaptability of the early maternal-fetal interface.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03799107.FUNDING ABOG/AAOGF; NICHD-R01-HD084380; NCTRI-P50-HD055764; NIAMS-P30-AR070155.
Authors
David Huang, Emily Flynn, Brittany Davidson, Juan C. Irwin, Mohammad Naser, Ana Laura Almonte, Jennifer Qin, Yue Song, Fleurdeliza B. Rabara, Rebecca Wong, Lydia B. Zablotska, Mitchell P. Rosen, Torsten Wittmann, Gabriela K. Fragiadakis, Alexis J. Combes, Marina Sirota, Marcelle I. Cedars, Linda C. Giudice
Usage data is cumulative from June 2026 through August 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 932 | 0 |
| 338 | 0 | |
| Figure | 115 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 134 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 216 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,735 | 0 |
| Total Views | 1,735 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
