Table 1.
Original studies on endometrial transcriptomics in assisted reproductive medicine
| References | Endometrial biopsy timing (in days) | Study |
|---|---|---|
| Carson et al. 2002 | LH + (2–4) versus LH + (7–9) | ES versus MS |
| Kao et al. 2002 | CD 8–10 versus LH + (8–10) | LP versus MS |
| Borthwick et al. 2003 | CD 9–11 versus LH + (6–8) | LP versus MS |
| Riesewijck et al. 2003 | LH + 2 versus LH + 7 | ES versus MS |
| Mirkin et al. 2004 | LH + 8 versus hCG + 9 | Ag versus Atg versus NC |
| Ponnampalam et al. 2004 | Complete cycle, dating by Noyes | EP versus MP versus LP versus ES versus MS versus LS versus M |
| Horcajadas et al. 2005 | LH(+ 2; + 7) versus hCG + 7 | NC versus COH |
| Mirkin et al. 2005 | LH + 3 versus LH + 8 | ES versus MS |
| Punyadeera et al. 2005 | CD 2–5 versus CD 11–14 | M versus LP |
| Simon et al. 2005 | LH (+ 2; + 7) versus hCG (+ 2; + 7) | Ag versus Atg versus NC |
| Yanahaira et al. 2005 | CD 9–11 | Epithelial versus stromal cells in proliferative phase |
| Critchley et al. 2006 | Dating by Noyes | MS versus LS |
| Talbi et al. 2006 | Complete cycle, dating by Noyes | EP versus MP versus LP versus ES versus MS versus LS |
| Horcajadas et al. 2008 | LH + (1–9) versus hCG+ (1–9) | NC versus COS |
| Liu et al. 2008 | LH + 7 versus hCG + 7 | NC versus COS |
| Macklon et al. 2008 | LH + 5 versus hCG + 2 | NC versus COS |
| Haouzi et al. 2009b | LH (+ 2; + 7) versus hCG + (+ 2; + 5) | NC versus COS |
| Haouzi et al. 2009a | LH + 2 versus LH + 7 | ES versus MS |
| Koler et al. 2009 | CD 21 | Fertility versus infertility |
| Altmäe et al. 2010 | LH + 7 | Fertility versus infertility |
| Haouzi et al. 2011 | LH (+ 2; + 7) versus hCG (+ 2; + 5) | Ag versus Atg versus NC |
| Tseng et al. 2010 | Dating by Noyes | ES versus MS versus LS |
| Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2010 | LH + (5–7) | MS versus pregnant |
| Blockeel et al. 2011 | Oocyte retrieval | rFSH versus low-dose hCG |
| Diaz-Gimeno et al. 2011 | LH + 1, + 3, + 5 versus LH + 7 LH + (1–5) versus LH + 7 versus CD 8–12 | LP versus ES versus MS |
| Labarta et al. 2011 | hCG + 7 | Different serum progesterone level |
| Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2011 | Oocyte retrieval | Different serum progesterone level |
| Evans et al. 2012 | LH + 2 versus LH + 7 | Epithelial versus stromal cells in proliferative phase |
| Petracco et al. 2012 | CD 1–3 versus CD 5–8 versus CD 11–13 | EP versus MP versus LP |
| Diaz-Gimeno et al. 2013 | Dating by Noyes versus ERA prediction | MP versus ES versus MS versus LS |
| Ruíz-Alonso et al. 2013 | P + 5/LH + 7 RIF versus controls | pWOI/pWOI delayed/pWOI advanced |
| Bermejo et al. 2014 | Oocyte retrieval COS | Comparing 4 GnRH-a protocols |
| Haouzi et al. 2014 | hCG + 2 versus hCG + 7 | Different serum progesterone level |
| Ruíz-Alonso et al. 2014 | P + 5 versus P + 7 | ET versus pET |
Note that endometrial disorders such as cancer, endometriosis, and myomas are not considered in this table.
Based on the data published in Díaz-Gimeno et al. 2014.
Abbreviations: Ag, agonist; Atg, antagonist; CD, cycle day; COH, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; COS, controlled ovarian stimulation; EP, early-proliferative; ERA, Endometrial Receptivity Array; ES, early-secretory; GnRH-a, Gonadotropin releasing hormone-agonist; hCG + , hCG administration + days; LH + , LH surge + days; LP, late-proliferative; LS, late-secretory; M, menstrual; MP, mid-proliferative; MS, mid-secretory; NC, natural cycle; P + , progesterone + days; pWOI, personalized window of implantation; rCG + , rCG administration + days; RIF, recurrent implantation failure.