Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238812

One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

Antonella Mastrorocco 1,¤a,*, Ludovica Cacopardo 2, Nicola Antonio Martino 1,¤b, Diana Fanelli 3, Francesco Camillo 3, Elena Ciani 1, Bernard A J Roelen 4, Arti Ahluwalia 2,5,#, Maria Elena Dell’Aquila 1,#
Editor: Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira6
PMCID: PMC7485809  PMID: 32915922

Abstract

Three-dimensional in vitro maturation (3D IVM) is a promising approach to improve IVM efficiency as it could prevent cumulus-oocyte complex (COC) flattening and preserve its structural and functional integrity. Methods reported to date have low reproducibility and validation studies are limited. In this study, a bioprinting based production process for generating microbeads containing a COC (COC-microbeads) was optimized and its validity tested in a large animal model (sheep). Alginate microbeads were produced and characterized for size, shape and stability under culture conditions. COC encapsulation had high efficiency and reproducibility and cumulus integrity was preserved. COC-microbeads underwent IVM, with COCs cultured in standard 2D IVM as controls. After IVM, oocytes were analyzed for nuclear chromatin configuration, bioenergetic/oxidative status and transcriptional activity of genes biomarker of mitochondrial activity (TFAM, ATP6, ATP8) and oocyte developmental competence (KHDC3, NLRP5, OOEP and TLE6). The 3D system supported oocyte nuclear maturation more efficiently than the 2D control (P<0.05). Ooplasmic mitochondrial activity and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation ability were increased (P<0.05). Up-regulation of TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 and down-regulation of KHDC3, NLRP5 expression were observed in 3D IVM. In conclusion, the new bioprinting method for producing COC-microbeads has high reproducibility and efficiency. Moreover, 3D IVM improves oocyte nuclear maturation and relevant parameters of oocyte cytoplasmic maturation and could be used for clinical and toxicological applications.

Introduction

The cumulus-oocyte complex (COC) is a multicellular structure characterized by three-dimensional (3D) architecture and bi-directional crosstalk between the oocyte and its surrounding cumulus cells. Paracrine interactions among these cells govern various processes of oogenesis culminating in oocyte meiosis resumption, maturation and ovulation [14]. Despite considerable success achieved in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) for in vitro production of embryos, both in human reproductive medicine [5, 6] and the animal production industry [79], current conditions used for in vitro oocyte maturation (IVM) are still sub-optimal compared with in vivo conditions [6, 1013].

The majority of ART studies have been conducted in conventional 2D culture systems. This may have led to limitations due to loss of cell native phenotype [14]. Bioengineering approaches have been employed to develop 3D culture methods in different cell systems and, over the last decade, there has been growing interest in cell microencapsulation, a procedure involving the enveloping of cells within a semipermeable polymeric matrix able to mimic the native tissue architecture and physiology. 3D culture methods for IVM after COC microencapsulation have become a goal for researchers in the field of ARTs [15] as microencapsulation may prevent COCs flattening on the bottom of the plate, typical of a traditional 2D culture system, which causes reduction of about 50% of the cell surface exposed to medium [16].

Suitable biomaterials and microfabrication procedures are important for microencapsulation. Among biocompatible materials, alginate hydrogels have been successfully used for culturing and studying different cell types [17] and have been widely employed in long-term in vitro culture of ovarian follicles [1831]. In recent years, IVM culture of COCs in 3D alginate microenvironments has been reported in various animal models with encouraging results [18, 3236]. Methods for fabricating microbeads containing a COC, namely “COC-microbeads”, need to be chosen according to their ability to control microbead shape and dimensions and generate reproducible 3D IVMs. Various bioprinting technologies have been developed [37] and a compact open source tool, the spherical hydrogel generator (Sphyga), was developed for the fabrication of highly reproducible hydrogel-based microbeads with predictable shapes and diameters [38]. This system is able to create a wide range of working conditions for fabricating tailored microbeads and thereby to generate biologically relevant microenvironments for many biomedical applications [38].

Assessing oocyte maturation and acquisition of developmental competence after IVM includes analysis of nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation. Nuclear maturation involves chromosomal segregation, whereas cytoplasmic maturation involves organelle redistribution, cytoskeleton dynamics and molecular maturation [39]. In the context of organelle redistribution, mitochondria position at different locations and increase their activity during the transition from the germinal vesicle stage to the metaphase II stage [39, 40]. Molecular maturation includes transcription, storage and processing of maternal mRNA [39]. Transcription of specific genes, particularly genes coding for proteins involved in mitochondrial functions, can predict specific aspects of oocyte maturation and, expression of TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 can reflect oocyte quality [41]. Indeed, TFAM encodes a transcription factor that binds mitochondrial DNA [42]. ATP6 and ATP8 are mitochondrial genes coding for two subunits of the complex V of the respiratory chain, namely ATP synthase, involved in ATP production [4345]. The subcortical maternal complex (SCMC) is known to play essential roles in early embryo development and female fertility [4651]. It was first described in the subcortex of mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos as a 669–2000 KD molecular weight complex composed of several proteins encoded by maternal effect genes (MEG) [46]. They include OOEP (Oocyte Expressed Protein, also known as Factor Located in Oocytes Permitting Embryonic Development, FLOPED), NLRP5 (NLR family, pyrin domain containing protein 5, also known as Maternal Antigen That Embryo Requires, MATER), TLE6 (Transducin Like Enhancer of Split 6), KDHC3 (also known as FILIA) and zinc finger BED-type containing 3 (ZBED3), and plausibly also NLRP2 and PADI6 (Peptidyl-Arginine DeIminase 6) [46, 49]. The SCMC is essential for zygote progression beyond the first embryonic cell divisions and is considered as biomarker of oocyte developmental competence [47].

Given these premises, the aims of the present study were: 1) to set up the conditions for generating reproducible COC-microbeads by an alginate-based bioprinting technology; 2) to establish an efficient 3D IVM culture system in the sheep as a large animal model.

Materials and methods

Chemicals

All chemicals for in vitro cultures and analyses were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Milan, Italy) unless otherwise indicated.

Collection of ovaries

Ovaries from adult sheep (over 1 year) were recovered at local slaughterhouses (Matteoni SNC, Lucca, Italy and Van Kooten Vleesgroothandel B.V., Oeverweg 3, 3417 XK Montfoort, The Netherlands). Animals were subjected to routine veterinary inspection in accordance with the specific health requirements stated in Council Directive 89/556/ECC and subsequent modifications and were slaughtered according to national and EU regulations in full compliance with regulation (EC) n.1099/2009. In all sites, ovaries were transported to the laboratory at room temperature within 4 hours after slaughter.

COC retrieval

For COC retrieval, ovaries from adult cyclic ewes underwent follicular fluid aspiration using an 18 G needle followed by slicing [52]. Follicular contents were released in sterile Petri dishes containing phosphate buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with 1 mg/mL heparin. Only COCs with at least three intact cumulus cell layers and homogenous cytoplasm were selected for culture [53].

In vitro maturation (IVM) medium

IVM medium composition was TCM-199 medium with Earle’s salts buffered with 5.87 mM HEPES and 33.09 mM sodium bicarbonate, supplemented with 0.1 g/L L-glutamine, 2.27 mM sodium pyruvate, calcium lactate pentahydrate (1.62 mM Ca2+, 3.9 mM Lactate), 50 μg/mL gentamicin, 20% (v/v) fetal calf serum (FCS), 10 μg/mL ovine follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), 20 μg/mL ovine luteinizing hormone (LH) and 1 μg/mL 17β estradiol [54]. IVM medium and paraffin oil were pre-equilibrated for 1 hour under 5% CO2 in air at 38.5°C. IVM culture was performed in 4-well plates (Nunc Intermed, Roskilde, Denmark). Each culture well contained 400 μL IVM medium and was covered with 400 μL of lightweight paraffin oil to prevent evaporation of culture and bacterial contamination. Prior to microbead or COC upload, plates were equilibrated for 30 minutes under 5% CO2 in air at 38.5°C.

Alginate microbead fabrication

Spherical alginate-based microbeads with controlled and predictable shape, size and stability, were fabricated using the spherical hydrogel generator Sphyga [38]. It is a compact device composed of an extrusion module (i.e. commercial syringe and linear actuation stage) and dedicated software which allows the control of the system’s working parameters. Through the software, solution flow rate is set and controlled in the range of (5–20 ± 1) μLs−1, while external air pressure (1–100 ± 0.4) kPa can be applied to the tip of the syringe to accelerate droplet separation. As the system is activated, the plunger moves down the syringe barrel, the solution flows through the needle and a drop, with size depending on the internal diameter of the needle, is generated on its tip. The liquid droplet lands in a beaker filled with a crosslinking solution whereupon it forms a hydrogel bead. In these microbeads, cells are enclosed in a 3D microenvironment with COC-related dimensions (about 1000 μm in radius) in a biopolymer whereby an adequate supply of oxygen and nutrients in the media as well as waste removal is guaranteed [55, 56]. Fig 1 shows the spherical hydrogel generator Sphyga (A, B), the calcium-induced gelification (C) and the Sphyga set-up for microbead preparation (D-E). For adaptations to ovine COC structure and size, alginate solutions were prepared in IVM medium as described above and alginate biopolymer was physically crosslinked by using 100 mM CaCl2 in deionized water [15, 38]. All solutions were equilibrated at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air for at least 1 hour before use. The flow rate was kept constant at 10 μLs−1 without applying external air pressure [57] to reduce the shear stress which could damage COC viability. Briefly, after setting the parameters through the Sphyga graphical user interface (GUI; [38]), the syringe was filled with the alginate solution, the system was activated, and the beads were collected in a beaker containing 100 mL of CaCl2 solution placed at a distance of 5 cm from the needle tip. Newly formed alginate microbeads were kept immersed in the CaCl2 solution for 5 minutes to allow homogeneous crosslink formation. They were then collected, rinsed with fresh IVM medium and characterized for their morphology and stability in culture conditions. In order to produce microbeads of desired size and shape, the use of needles with different internal diameters (610, 508, 406, 330, 152 and 102 μm) was tested. The effects of two alginate concentrations (1% and 2% w/v) were analyzed (Fig 1F).

Fig 1. Spherical hydrogel generator Sphyga set up and microbead preparation procedure.

Fig 1

(A) Extrusion module. (B) Mechanical framework with coaxial design for holding the syringe (B1) and to direct microdroplets into the beaker (B2-3). (C) Ungelled sodium alginate biopolymer fibers followed by calcium-induced alginate gelification. (D) Sphyga set up under a laminar flow hood with dedicated software. (E) Freshly generated alginate microbeads (white arrows) in 100 mM CaCl2 solution. (F) Photomicrographs showing representative images of microbeads obtained with 1% or 2% alginate and needles of different size. Scale bar represents 300 μm.

Microbead morphological characterization and stability in culture conditions

Microbead features were characterized as function of fabrication parameters acquiring bright-field images at different time points (immediately after fabrication up to 24 hours) using an inverted microscope (Olympus IX81, Italy). For microbead morphology, images retrieving dimensions (radius) and the shape descriptor “aspect ratio” [58]) were analyzed using the Analyze Particles tool (ImageJ [59]). The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio between the major and the minor axis of an ellipse, with a value of 1.0 indicating a circle. In order to assess the long-term stability of alginate microbeads in IVM medium, alginate microbeads were placed in multi-well Petri dishes (Nunc Intermed, Roskilde, Denmark) containing 400 μL of IVM medium and maintained for 24 hours at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air to simulate the IVM conditions. Bright-field images of the beads were acquired at intervals of 4 hours and microbead radius and aspect ratio were analyzed.

Alginate COC-microbead generation

For biological studies, alginate microbeads were fabricated by using the parameters (alginate and crosslinking solution concentrations and needle size) selected in the first part of the study. All experiments were carried out with Sphyga positioned under a sterile hood [38]. Sodium alginate solutions were prepared in IVM medium, filtered and kept at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air. The alginate biopolymer solution was physically crosslinked using 0.1M CaCl2 at 38.5°C. A needle with appropriate internal diameter was used, maintaining a flow rate of 10 μLs−1. After setting the parameters through the Sphyga GUI, the syringe was filled with the alginate solution and COCs were added to it. A 20 μL micropipette was used to release COCs in IVM medium in the inner part of the syringe, along the extrusion direction, in order to obtain and facilitate the automatized encapsulation of one COC/microbead (Fig 2A). As described above, COC-microbeads were collected approximately 2 minutes after the initiation of the formation process and kept immersed in the CaCl2 solution to allow homogeneous crosslink formation. The microbeads were then observed under an optical stereomicroscope and only those containing one COC were selected and used for IVM. The “encapsulation efficiency” was measured before IVM as “encapsulation rate”, the proportion of COCs loaded in the Sphyga syringe which came out as included in microbeads in a 1/1 proportion. Those COCs which resulted non included in microbeads or included in a more than 1/1 proportion (in groups of 2 or more COCs) were excluded.

Fig 2. 3D IVM set up and cumulus expansion assessment.

Fig 2

(A) Calcium-induced alginate gelification in presence of a COC to produce a COC-microbead. (B) COC-microbeads placed in 4-well culture dishes for IVM (white arrows). (C) Diagram of oocytes cultured under 3D and 2D IVM conditions. (D, E) Representative images showing a 1% alginate COC-microbead as observed before (D, with compact cumulus oophorus, scale bar represents 400 μm) and after 24 hours 3D IVM culture (E, with expanded cumulus oophorus, scale bar represents 300 μm).

Three-dimensional (3D) IVM

Selected COC-microbeads were rinsed with fresh IVM medium and placed in the culture plates (mean n. of microbeads/well = 20–25; Fig 2B and 2C). COCs not subjected to encapsulation were cultured in the same dishes for use as conventional 2D controls (mean number of COCs/well = 20–25; Fig 2C) [54]. For both 3D and 2D IVM systems, the overall process, from COC selection/encapsulation until place the culture plate in the incubator took about 2 hours. In vitro maturation was performed for 24 hours at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air. After 24 hours IVM, cumulus expansion was analyzed meanwhile the COC was in the microbead under stereoscopic microscopy (Nikon SMZ1500, Nikon Instruments, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Then, sodium alginate was removed by calcium chelation with 2% w/v sodium citrate in IVM medium for 5 minutes at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air. COCs were recovered and cumulus expansion was checked again. Indeed, COCs showing cumuli with continuous edges, consisting of cells in close contact each other, were classified as compact (Fig 2D), whereas cumuli showing discontinuous edges following cell detachment and production of a viscous extracellular matrix were classified as expanded (Fig 2E). The percentage of expanded/total COCs was reported. COCs underwent cumulus cell removal by incubation in TCM-199 with 20% FCS containing 80 IU hyaluronidase/mL and aspiration in and out of finely drawn glass pipettes. Denuded oocytes were evaluated for meiotic stage and matured ones were used to assess bioenergetic/oxidative status assessment or gene expression.

Staining for mitochondria and ROS

Oocytes were stained for mitochondria and reactive oxygen species (ROS) following previously reported procedures [54]. Briefly, oocytes were incubated for 30 minutes in IVM medium with 280 nM MitoTracker Orange CMTM Ros (Molecular Probes) at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 followed by incubation for 15 minutes in the same medium with 10 μM 2’,7’- dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate (H2DCF-DA) at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in order to detect dichlorofluorescein (DCF)-stained intracellular ROS. After staining, oocytes were fixed overnight at 4°C with 2% (v/v) paraformaldehyde solution in PBS until processed for oocyte nuclear chromatin evaluation as described below.

Oocyte nuclear chromatin evaluation

Fixed oocytes were stained with 2.5 μg/mL Hoechst 33258 in 3:1 (v/v) glycerol/PBS and mounted on microscope slides with coverslips, sealed with nail polish and kept at 4°C in the dark until observation. Slides were examined under an epifluorescence microscope (Nikon Eclipse 600; ×400 magnification) equipped with a B-2A (346 nm excitation/460 nm emission) filter. Oocytes were evaluated in relation to their meiotic stage and classified as germinal vesicle (GV), metaphase to telophase I (MI to TI), MII with the 1st polar body extruded, or as abnormal [54]. Oocytes showing either multipolar meiotic spindle or irregular chromatin clumps or absence of chromatin were considered as abnormal [60]. Oocytes with the first polar body extruded and one pronucleus were classified as parthenogenetically activated [61].

Assessment of mitochondrial distribution pattern

Matured oocytes were examined at 600x magnification in oil immersion with a Nikon C1/TE2000-U confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM); 25 optical series were made per oocyte with a step size of 0.45 μm. The mitochondrial distribution pattern was evaluated following previously reported criteria [54]. Thus, homogeneous distribution of small mitochondria aggregates throughout the cytoplasm indicates weak bioenergetic status whereas perinuclear (with mitochondria around meiotic spindle) associated with subplasmalemmal (in the cortical region) distribution was considered as healthy bioenergetic status (P/S; [54]).

Fluorescence intensity quantification

In each individual MII oocyte, MitoTracker Orange CMTM Ros and DCF fluorescence intensities were measured at equatorial plane, with the EZ-C1 Gold Version 3.70 image analysis software for Nikon C1 confocal microscope. A circle area was drawn to measure the area including cell cytoplasm and fluorescence intensity encountered within the scan area was recorded and plotted against a conventional pixel unit scale (0–255). Sample signals were expressed as percentage of the control sample. [54, 62].

Mitochondria-ROS colocalization analysis

Colocalization analysis of mitochondria and ROS was performed with the EZ-C1 Gold Version 3.70 software. Degree of colocalization was reported as correlation coefficient quantifying the overlap degree between MitoTraker Orange CMTM Ros and DCF fluorescence signals [54, 62].

Quantitative RT-PCR

Additional independent replicates of 3D versus 2D IVM were performed (30–35 COC-microbeads/well for 3D IVM and 30–35 COCs/well for 2D IVM). After 24 hours IVM, cumulus cells were removed. Denuded oocytes were evaluated under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZH10, Italy) and those showing the first polar body extruded were selected. Total RNA was extracted with an RNAeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia CA, USA) as per manufacturer’s instructions. For each replicate of each experimental group, RNA was extracted from pools of 20–26 matured oocytes/pool. Total RNA (18 μL from each sample) was kept at 70°C for 5 minutes and then chilled on ice. Ten μL of RNA were used for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Reverse transcription was performed in a volume of 20 μL, consisting of 10 μL of samples and 10 μL of a mastermix containing 4 μL 5 × 1st strand buffer, 0.4 μL random primers (0.09 IU/mL), 0.2 μL RNAse (40 IU/mL), 0.75 μL Superscript III (200 IU/mL) (Invitrogen, Groningen, The Netherlands), 2 μL dithiothreitol (0.1 M), 1 μL dNTP mix (10 mM) and 1.65 μL H2O, and incubated at 50°C for 1 hour. As a negative control, reverse transcriptase was replaced by H2O (-RT blanks). Samples were subsequently kept at 80°C for 15 minutes and stored at −20°C. The PCR mixture contained 1 μL cDNA, 0.125 μL forward and reverse primers (0.5 μM each; Isogen, Maarssen, The Netherlands), 12.25 μL iQ SYBR Green supermix (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) and 11.25 μL H2O for a total volume of 25 μL. The list of analysed genes is reported in Table 1. The oligonucleotide primers were designed using Primer-BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/) using default criterion of the software with amplified products ranging from 100 to 400 bp. Primer amplification efficiency was determined from standard curves generated by serial dilutions of cDNA (5-fold each) for each gene in triplicate. After an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 3 minutes, 40 cycles were carried out each consisting of 95°C for 15s, the primer specific annealing temperature (Table 1) for 10s, and 72°C for 20s. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed in duplicate on two replicates of cDNA and singular on the −RT blanks. For each target gene, all the samples were quantified simultaneously in one run in a 96-well plate using a real-time PCR detection system (MyiQ Single-color, Real-Time Detection System; Bio-Rad). Melting curves were plotted to verify single product amplification. Standard curves made on cDNA dilutions were used to calculate the relative starting quantity of each experimental sample. The expression levels Actin Beta (ACTB) and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) were analyzed for normalization, but the expression of ACTB demonstrated to be rather dynamic and not suitable for normalization. Therefore, only GAPDH was used for normalization of the expression levels of the target genes performed by using the ratio of the relative starting quantity of the target gene with the reference gene.

Table 1. List of analyzed genes.

Gene symbol Gene description GenBank accession n. Primers Annealing Temperature (°C) Size (bps)
TFAM Mitochondrial Transcription Factor A XM_027962472 F: 5’ CTCGCGGCTTTAGGGCG 3’ 61 235
R: 5’ CCACTCAAGCTGGATGAAAACC 3’
ATP6 Mitochondrially encoded ATP synthase FO subunit 6 AF010406 F: 5’ CTACCACAAGGGACACCCAC 3’ 58 161
R: 5’ ATTAGTGCAAGGGTGGCTCC 3’
ATP8 Mitochondrially encoded ATP synthase FO subunit 8 AF010406 F: 5’ GCCACAACTAGACACATCAACG 3’ 61 195
R: 5’ AGGGGTAATGAAAGAGGCAAA 3’
KHDC3 KH domain-containing protein 3 XM_004011872 F: 5′ CAGACCCTGCTTCACGTTCA 3′ 60 150
R: 5′ CTTCTCAGAGCTTCGCGCC 3′
NLRP5 NLR family, pyrin domain containing Protein 5 HM037368.1 F: 5′ CAGCCTCCAGGAGTTCTTTG 3′ 59 212
R: 5′ GACAGCCTAGGAGGGTTTCC 3′
OOEP 1 Oocyte Expressed Protein 1 KF218578 F: 5′ ATCCGCTGGTGTTCTTCCTG 3′ 60 149
R: 5′ GAACACGGTGACTTCGACCA 3′
OOEP 2 Oocyte Expressed Protein 2 KF741040 F: 5′ TCCCCAAACTCCTTGCAGTG 3′ 60 114
R: 5′ CGGCAGGTAGGTGTCTGAAT 3′
TLE6 Transducin-Like Enhancer of Split 6 XM_004009373 F: 5′ TACCTGCGCACCTGCCTGCT 3′ 58 195
R: 5′ ATTGGTGAAGCCAGCAAAAG 3′
GAPDH Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase NM_001190390 F: 5’ GGTTGTCTCCTGCGACTTCA 3’ 60 301
R: 5’ CAGGGCCTTGAGGATGGAAA 3’

Statistical analysis

Microbead morphology data were compared by the Student’s t test. For evaluation of microbead stability, mean values (mean±standard deviation) were compared among groups by one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). Encapsulation and cumulus expansion rate, as well as the proportions of oocytes showing different chromatin configurations and mitochondrial distribution pattern were compared between groups by Chi-square test. For mitochondria and ROS quantification analysis, raw values of fluorescence intensities and correlation coefficients were compared between groups by unpaired Student’s t test. Mean values (mean ± standard deviation) of fluorescence intensities and mitochondria‐ROS colocalization, indicated as correlation coefficient, were expressed as percentage of the signal of the control sample. Gene expression data were compared by the Student’s t test. Differences with P <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Microbead fabrication and characterization

The first objective was to obtain microbeads of adequate size and shape to contain a sheep COC which, like the human COC, measures around 300 μm and reaches around 500–600 μm in diameter after cumulus expansion. For this purpose, needles of different inner diameters and two alginate concentrations, 1% and 2%, were used. The microbeads were evaluated by acquiring bright-field images immediately after fabrication. The needle with a 508 μM diameter (21 G) was the working parameter which gave rise to reproducible microbeads of the desired size (1000 μm in radius) and shape, suitable for inclusion of ovine COCs (Table 2). In these conditions, reproducible and homogeneous spherical beads with an aspect ratio = 1.21 ± 0.10 (i.e. nearly circular) were obtained. As observed immediately after fabrication, no significant size and shape differences were observed in the beads obtained with 1% versus 2% alginate (Table 2). Then, the suitability of the two examined alginate concentrations was evaluated in terms of COC encapsulation and cumulus expansion efficiency. COCs in 2 independent replicates were used (n = 100 COCs/replicate). Just after fabrication, COC encapsulation rate in 1% alginate was significantly higher compared with 2% alginate (P<0.0001; Table 3). In both alginate concentrations this value ranged between 70 and 100%. After IVM, cumulus expansion rate was also significantly higher in 1% alginate microbeads compared with 2% alginate (P<0.0001; Table 3). These results led us to prefer the use of 1% alginate for subsequent studies. Therefore, microbead stability and oocyte maturation rate were analyzed in 1% alginate and by using the 508 μm needle. 3D microbeads produced with 1% alginate and the 508 μm needle remained stable in shape and size when incubated over 24 hours at 38.5°C under 5% CO2 in air (Table 4). No broken beads were observed at any time.

Table 2. Microbead morphology immediately after fabrication as related to needle size and alginate concentration.

Needle internal diameter (μm) Alginate concentration (%) Radius (μm) Aspect ratio (*)
610 1 1148.20 ± 151.48 1.71 ± 0.33
2 1179.53 ± 204.95 1.75 ± 0.25
508 1 1070.39 ± 88.23 1.21 ± 0.10
2 1099.69 ± 112.46 1.33 ± 0.18
406 1 900.90 ± 110.18 1.44 ± 0.23
2 925.49 ± 107.83 1.58 ± 0.21
330 1 859.33 ± 17.30 1.39 ± 0.18
2 882.77 ± 47.31 1.42 ± 0.26
152 1 807.44 ± 47.49 1.28 ± 0.16
2 759.44 ± 58.29 1.40 ± 0.29
102 1 723.02 ± 61.81 1.30 ± 0.14
2 703.85 ± 63.24 1.43 ± 0.20

(*) Aspect ratio defined according to Russ [51]. For each condition, data are mean ± standard deviation of n = 50 microbead measures. Student’s t test: for each needle size, comparisons 1% versus 2% alginate were not significant.

Table 3. Effects of alginate concentration on encapsulation and expansion rate of adult sheep COCs in engineered microbeads.

Alginate concentration (%) n. of analyzed microbeads Encapsulation rate n. (%) Cumulus expansion rate n. (%)
1 100 98 (98) a 85/98 (87) a
2 100 71 (71) b 36/71 (51) b

Chi square test: within each column, different superscripts indicate statistically significant differences: a, b = P<0.0001.

Table 4. Microbead stability in IVM culture expressed as size (radius) and the shape descriptor aspect ratio (*), characterized as function of 4-hours intervals.

Time (h) Radius (μm) Aspect ratio
0 1058.51 ± 117.01 1.17 ± 0.10
4 985.44 ± 106.23 1.18 ± 0.10
8 1019.36 ± 87.25 1.20 ± 0.14
12 1038.81 ± 95.18 1.22 ± 0.12
16 1020.16 ± 85.02 1.22 ± 0.13
20 1012.55 ± 98.38 1.22 ± 0.12
24 1053.99 ± 72.15 1.18 ± 0.10

(*) Aspect ratio defined according to Russ [51]. For each condition, data are mean ± standard deviation of n = 50 microbead measures. Microbeads fabricated with 508 μm needle and 1% alginate. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test: not significant.

3D IVM improves oocyte nuclear maturation

In the IVM study, 349 COCs were cultured under 3D IVM within 1% alginate engineered microbeads obtained with a 508 μm needle (n = 196) versus 2D IVM (n = 153) in 6–9 independent replicates. After culture under 3D IVM, the percentage of oocytes which reached the MII stage was significantly higher than that obtained after culture in the conventional control 2D system (P<0.05, Table 5). Correspondingly, significant reduction of the percentage of oocytes showing abnormal chromatin configuration, compared with the 2D controls, was observed (P<0.05, Table 5). In 2% alginate microbeads, oocyte maturation rate was significantly lower (P<0.05) whereas the activation rate was significantly higher in respect with 2D controls (P<0.001; S1 File).

Table 5. Effects of 3D IVM culture in 1% alginate engineered microbeads on the maturation rate of adult sheep oocytes.

IVM system n. of analyzed COCs Nuclear chromatin configurations n. (%)
GV MI to TI MII Abnormal
2D 153 26 (16.9) 21 (13.7) 87 (56.9) a 19 (12.4) a
3D 196 29 (14.8) 24 (12.2) 133 (67.9) b 10 (5.1) b

GV, Germinal vesicle; M, metaphase; T, telophase. Chi square test: within each column, different superscripts indicate statistically significant differences: a, b = P<0.05.

3D IVM improves oocyte bioenergetic/oxidative status

To determine the effects of 3D IVM on oocyte bioenergetic/redox status, matured oocytes derived from 3D (n = 29) versus 2D IVM (n = 14) underwent mitochondria and ROS staining followed by CLSM analysis. No effect on the distribution of mitochondria was observed after 3D IVM. Indeed, the percentages of oocytes showing heterogeneous perinuclear and subcortical mitochondrial distribution, indicating cytoplasm maturity and competence, were similar in the two groups (24/29, 83% versus 11/14, 79%; for 3D and 2D respectively; Chi-square test, not significant). However, oocyte mitochondrial membrane potential and intracellular ROS levels significantly increased after 3D IVM, as assessed by increased MitoTracker Orange CMTM Ros and DCF fluorescence intensities, respectively (Fig 3A, red and green bars). Mitochondrial/ROS colocalization did not vary between the two IVM procedures (Fig 3A, yellow bars). Fig 3B shows representative photomicrographs of an oocyte cultured in 3D IVM (lane 1) and a control oocyte (lane 2). Both oocytes show P/S mitochondrial distribution and the oocyte matured in the 3D IVM system shows increased mitochondria- and ROS-related fluorescence intensities (columns C and D).

Fig 3. Effects of 3D IVM on bioenergetic/oxidative status.

Fig 3

(A) Quantification data of bioenergetic/oxidative parameters of MII oocytes cultured in 2D (n = 14 MII oocytes) versus 3D IVM (n = 29 MII oocytes). Mitochondrial activity and intracellular ROS levels are expressed as percentage of the signal value of control samples (oocytes cultured in 2D IVM). Mitochondrial/ROS colocalization is expressed as percentage of the correlation coefficient value of control samples. Numbers of analyzed matured oocytes are indicated at the bottom of each graph bar. Student’s t test: *P<0.05. (B) Photomicrographs showing representative images of oocyte after 3D (lane 1) and 2D IVM (lane 2). Corresponding phase-contrast images showing cell morphology (column A), epifluorescence images showing nuclear chromatin configuration (column B: Hoechst 33258) and confocal images showing perinuclear and subplasmalemmal (P/S) mitochondrial distribution pattern and activity (column C: MitoTracker Orange CMTM Ros), intracellular ROS localization and levels (column D: DCDHF DA) and mitochondria/ROS colocalization (column E: Merge). Confocal images were taken at the oocyte equatorial plane. Scale bars represent 40 μm.

3D IVM modulates oocyte gene expression

To investigate the effect of 3D IVM culture on oocyte molecular maturation the relative abundance of a panel of genes expressed after oocyte maturation was analyzed (Table 1). After additional trials (n = 3) of 3D versus 2D IVM, denuded oocytes showing the first polar body extruded (77/96, 80% and 72/106, 68%; for 3D and 2D IVM respectively; P<0.05) were pooled in groups of 20–26 oocytes/group, processed and examined. The expression of genes related to oocyte mitochondrial activity (TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8) was significantly upregulated in oocytes matured in the 3D IVM system compared to controls (Fig 4A). The expression of genes coding for SCMC proteins (KHDC3, NLRP5, OOEP and TLE6) associated with oocyte developmental competence, was also analyzed. The expression of KHDC3 and NLRP5 was significantly downregulated in oocytes matured in the 3D IVM system compared to control oocytes (Fig 4B). The relative abundance of OOEP1, OOEP2 and TLE6 transcripts was similar between groups (P-values: 0.203, 0.124 and 0.872 for OOEP1, OOEP2 and TLE6, respectively; Fig 4C).

Fig 4. Effects of 3D IVM on oocyte transcript abundance for genes related with mitochondria function and maternal effect (developmental potential).

Fig 4

(A) Relative expression of TFAM, ATP6, ATP8. (B) Relative expression of KHDC3 and NLRP5. (C) Relative expression of OOEP1, OOEP2 and TLE6. Comparisons between data obtained from ovine mature (MII) oocytes derived from 3D versus 2D IVM. Data are normalized by using the ratio of the relative starting quantity of the target gene with the reference gene (GAPDH). For each gene, three replicates were performed. Student’s t test: *P<0.05; **P<0.01.

Discussion

An efficient 3D system, capable of improving IVM culture conditions, has to ensure COC integrity as this is a basic aspect of oocyte trophic potential. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study proposing an automated one-step bioprinting method for preparation of COC-microbeads and assessing its validity on oocyte nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation. Indeed, most of the studies published to date described two-step or manual procedures [3236]. Dorati et al. [15] described alginate microbead preparation by the diffusion setting gelation technique in which, using a mouth-controlled hand-pulled glass Pasteur micro-pipette, single COCs were transferred into the alginate solution in culture medium and dropped into single wells of a 96-well plate containing the cross-linking agent. Morselli et al. [32] developed a two-step technique in which barium alginate microcapsules were produced and subsequently injected feline and canine COCs into the inner core of the microcapsules [3234, 36]. Faustini et al. [35] described a protocol for bioencapsulation of COCs and granulosa cells in which a suspension of granulosa cells in cross-linking solution was dropped in an alginate solution. The COCs were then injected into the capsules and immersed in culture media in wells. As far as we know, the present study is the first reporting a method in which COCs are encapsulated meanwhile the microbead is formed, thus reducing the number of passages and manipulations to which COCs are subjected. This method is highly reproducible and capable of controlling cumulus size and integrity. It is thus applicable for clinical and research purposes and for regulatory testing.

Alginate hydrogel was the biocompatible matrix of choice as it has been reported for in vitro culture of pre-antral follicles of several animal species. In recent studies, the use of this biomaterial has also been reported for oocyte IVM [15, 3236]. The clinical interest in IVM is constantly urged by the World Health Organization since infertility affects about 15% of couples [15]. Moreover, women who undergo cytotoxic treatments for cancer therapy require the use of cryopreserved oocytes and could potentially benefit from more efficient IVM protocols. In addition, IVM is the elective procedure for the in vitro production of embryos for the farm animal production industry [9]. Our data contribute to the validation of alginate hydrogel in ARTs, as successful oocyte culture was performed in which oocytes reached nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation.

The Sphyga bioprinter allowed the automated generation of high numbers of microbeads with homogeneous size and shape [38]. Thus, it was also possible to establish a fixed number of COC-microbeads per well in culture dishes. The analysis of the effects of needle diameter on microbead size and morphology was used to obtain microbeads with similar size and spherical shape to try to ensure equal distance from the COC surface to the outer environment and to enhance gas exchange, nutrient diffusion and cellular waste removal. Indeed, immature COCs from adult ewes are 200–300 μm in diameter. After IVM, COCs reach 500–600 μm due to cumulus expansion. For this reason, a microbead of 1000 μm in radius can suitably house an expanded COC. The possibility of controlling microbead dimensions is advantageous for potential applications to COCs of different animal species, as COCs of different species vary in size due to differences in cumulus cell layer number.

The subsequent part of the study concerned the effects of the 3D IVM system on oocyte nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation. After IVM, it was evident that the 3D system allowed full cumulus expansion, improved oocyte nuclear maturation rates and reduced the incidence of meiosis abnormalities. In addition, mitochondria activity and ROS generation ability were significantly increased after 3D IVM. These data were associated with unaltered colocalization of intracellular ROS with active mitochondria, denoting well-balanced oocyte redox status [54, 62, 63]. The CLSM-based multiparametric method used in the present study allowed to observe qualitative (mitochondria distribution pattern) and quantitative (mitochondrial activity and ROS generation ability) aspects of oocyte bioenergetic/oxidative status and to correlate them by assessing mitochondria—ROS colocalization, as biomarker of healthy, non oxidized, cytoplasmic condition. Mitochondria are fundamental organelles for oocytes since they regulate a number of cellular functions including ATP generation, calcium homeostasis, regulation of cytoplasmic redox state and signal transduction. So, optimal mitochondria function is required for oocyte maturation. Indeed, oocytes with defect in mitochondria activity such as depleted mitochondrial membrane potential, inhibited oxidative phosphorylation and consequent reduced ATP production experience problems with maturation and subsequent embryo development [64]. On the contrary, higher ATP levels in oocyte correlate with better embryo development and implantation rate [64]. As mitochondrial dysfunction negatively affects reproduction, improvement of mitochondrial function could potentially lead to improved fertility.

Increased levels of TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 gene expression were found which can be considered as predictive biomarkers of oocyte mitochondrial function [41]. During their maturation, oocytes store a large amount of mitochondria-related RNAs, involved in the translation of proteins of the respiratory chain, useful for production of ATP, necessary to support the energy demands for the various mitochondrial activities, including their intracellular motility, maintenance of homeostasis, and regulation of cell survival processes during fertilization, early embryonic development and genome activation [40]. Indeed, decreased ATP6 and TFAM expression during oocyte meiosis inhibits the capacity for oxidative phosphorylation and influence ATP generation, leading to chromosomal nondisjunctional error and aneuploidy since the required energy for spindle assembly has not been supplied [65, 66]. The effects of 3D IVM on oocyte developmental potential were analyzed through the subcortical maternal complex (SCMC) gene expression analysis. Expression of SCMC transcripts has been reported in oocytes and in vitro produced early embryos in sheep [47]. It has been demonstrated that mRNA expression is maximal in fully grown oocytes and abrubtly decreases during oocyte maturation and early development as part of the overall program of MEG transcript degradation and embryo genome activation [47]. Our findings revealed significant reduction of NLRP5 and KHDC3 expression in oocytes matured in the 3D compared with the 2D system, suggesting improved oocyte developmental competence. On the other hand, the expression of TLE6 remained stable in our study. This result is also in agreement with that by Bebbere et al. [47] of unchanged expression between low and high competence oocytes and embryos. TLE6 is important for the formation of the cytoplasmic F-actin meshwork and its absence leads to an unproper symmetric cell division and cleavage-stage embryonic death [50]. The unchanged expression level of this gene in our study could be interpreted considering the necessary persistence, throughout embryo development, of cytoplasmic structures driving symmetric blastomere divisions. In addition, our data showed unvaried expression of the OOEP transcript variants, OOEP1 and OOEP2. Our data on effects of 3D IVM on gene expression are in agreement with those by Morselli et al. [34] who reported down-regulation of the growth differentiation factor-9 (GDF-9), another gene involved in oocyte developmental competence, in canine oocytes after 3D IVM.

Overall, these results indicate that the 3D IVM culture improved nuclear maturation and the expression of some mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes. These results could be explained hypothesizing that the maintenance of the cumulus-oocyte 3D structure, during IVM culture, could have contributed to increase of the quantitative and/or qualitative relationship between regulatory factors and their receptor sites, thus improving the efficacy of signaling pathways of meiotic maturation. Further studied are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

In conclusion, this study reports an automated one-step bioprinting-based technique for production of COC-microbeads of reproducible size and shape and demonstrates that this 3D IVM method improves oocyte nuclear maturation and cytoplasmic parameters, biomarkers of oocyte bioenergetic and developmental potential.

Supporting information

S1 File. Effects of 3D IVM culture in alginate engineered microbeads on the maturation rate of adult sheep oocytes.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by UE - FSE-FSER, PON RI 2014-2020 Action I.1 - "Innovative doctoral of industrial interest" - a.a. 2016/2017, XXXII cycle, PhD Program "Functional and Applied Genomics and Proteomics” - DOT1302781" - Grant n°2. A.M. was also supported by the Research Grant n° VERI00086 in the framework of the Project “Demetra” (Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2018- 22; CUP code: C46C18000530001) funded by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research.

References

  • 1.Sugiura K, Pendola FL, Eppig JJ. Oocyte control of metabolic cooperativity between oocytes and companion granulosa cells: energy metabolism. Dev Biol. 2004;279(1): 20–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gilchrist RB, Ritter LJ, Armstrong DT. Oocyte-somatic cell interactions during follicle development in mammals. Anim Reprod Sci. 2004;82–83: 431–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Thompson JG, Lane M, Gilchrist RB. Metabolism of the bovine cumulus-oocyte complex and influence on subsequent developmental competence. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2007;64: 179–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Salustri A, Campagnolo L, Klinger FG, Camaioni A. Molecular organization and mechanical properties of the hyaluronan matrix surrounding the mammalian oocyte. Matrix Biol. 2019;78–79: 11–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, Gardner DK, Palermo GD, O'Neill CL, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(2): 185–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walls ML, Hart RJ. In vitro maturation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53: 60–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Paramio MT, Izquierdo D. Current status of in vitro embryo production in sheep and goats. Reprod Domest. 49 Suppl 2014;4: 37–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Blondin P. Logistics of large scale commercial IVF embryo production. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2016;29(1): 32–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sirard MA. 40 years of bovine IVF in the new genomic selection context. Reproduction. 2018;156(1): R1–R7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arias-Álvarez M, García-García RM, López-Tello J, Rebollar PG, Gutiérrez-Adán A, Lorenzo PL. In vivo and in vitro maturation of rabbit oocytes differently affects the gene expression profile, mitochondrial distribution, apoptosis and early embryo development. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017;1667–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brown HM, Dunning KR, Sutton-McDowall M, Gilchrist RB, Thompson JG, Russell DL. Failure to launch: aberrant cumulus gene expression during oocyte in vitro maturation. Reproduction. 2017;153(3): R109–R120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Romar R, Cánovas S, Matás C, Gadea J, Coy P. Pig in vitro fertilization: Where are we and where do we go? Theriogenology. 2019;137: 113–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Walter J, Huwiler F, Fortes C, Grossmann J, Roschitzki B, Hu J, et al. Analysis of the equine "cumulome" reveals major metabolic aberrations after maturation in vitro. BMC Genomics. 2019;20(1): 588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Duval K, Grover H, Han LH, Mou Y, Pegoraro AF, Fredberg J, et al. Modeling physiological events in 2D vs 3D cell culture. Physiology (Bethesda). 2017;32(4): 266–277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Research Misconduct Found]
  • 15.Dorati R, Genta I, Ferrari M, Vigone G, Merico V, Garagna S, et al. Formulation and stability evaluation of 3D alginate beads potentially useful for cumulus-oocyte complexes culture. J Microencapsul. 2016;33(2): 137–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.De Loos F, van Maurik P, van Beneden T, Kruip TA. Structural aspects of bovine oocyte maturation in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev. 1992;31(3): 208–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Andersen T, Auk-Emblem P, Dornish M. 3D cell culture in alginate hydrogels. Microarrays (Basel). 2015;24;4(2): 133–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pangas SA, Saudye H, Shea LD, Woodruff TK. Novel approach for the three-dimensional culture of granulosa cell–oocyte complexes. Tissue Eng. 2003;9: 1013–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xu M, Kreeger PK, Shea LD, Woodruff TK. Tissue-engineered follicles produce live, fertile offspring. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(10): 2739–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Parrish EM, Siletz A, Xu M, Woodruff TK, Shea LD. Gene expression in mouse ovarian follicle development in vivo versus an ex vivo alginate culture system. Reproduction. 2011;142(2): 309–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brito IR, Silva CMG, Duarte ABG, Lima IMT, Rodrigues GQ, Rossetto R, et al. Alginate hydrogel matrix stiffness influences the in vitro development of caprine preantral follicles. Mol Reprod Dev. 2014;81: 636–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cho JK, Agarwal P, Huang H, Zhao S, He X. The crucial role of mechanical heterogeneity in regulating follicle development and ovulation with engineered ovarian microtissue. Biomaterials. 2014;35(19): 5122–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Silva GM, Rossetto R, Chaves RN, Duarte AB, Araújo VR, Feltrin C, et al. In vitro development of secondary follicles from pre-pubertal and adult goats cultured in two-dimensional or three-dimensional systems. Zygote. 2015;23(4): 475–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vanacker J, Amorim CA. Alginate: a versatile biomaterial to encapsulate isolated ovarian follicles. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(7): 1633–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sadr SZ, Fatehi R, Maroufizadeh S, Amorim CA, Ebrahimi B. Utilizing fibrin-alginate and matrigel-alginate for mouse follicle development in three-dimensional culture systems. Biopreserv Biobank. 2018;16(2): 120–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.West ER, Shea LD, Woodruff TK. Engineering the follicle microenvironment. Reprod Med. 2007;25(4): 287–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Desai N, Alex A, Abdel Hafez F, Calabro A, Goldfarb J, Fleischman J, et al. Three-dimensional in vitro follicle growth: Overview of culture models, biomaterials, design parameters and future directions. Reprod Biol Endocrin. 2010;8: 119–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shea LD, Woodruff TK, Shikanov A. Bioengineering the ovarian follicle microenvironment. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;16: 29–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.He X. Microfluidic encapsulation of ovarian follicles for 3D culture. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(7): 1676–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.He X, Toth TL. In vitro culture of ovarian follicles from Peromyscus. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2017;61: 140–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jones ASK, Shikanov A. Follicle development as an orchestrated signaling network in a 3D organoid. J Biol Eng. 2019;13: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Morselli MG, Canziani S, Vigo D, Luvoni GC. A three-dimensional alginate system for in vitro culture of cumulus-denuded feline oocytes. Reprod Domest Anim. 2017;52(1): 83–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Morselli MG, Luvoni GC, Comizzoli P. The nuclear and developmental competence of cumulus–oocyte complexes is enhanced by three-dimensional coculture with conspecific denuded oocytes during in vitro maturation in the domestic cat model. Reprod Domest Anim. 52 Suppl 2017;2: 82–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Morselli MG, Loiacono M, Colombo M, Mortarino M, Luvoni GC. Nuclear competence and genetic expression of growth differentiation factor-9 (GDF-9) of canine oocytes in 3D culture. Reprod Domest Anim. 53 Suppl 2018;3: 117–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Faustini M, Curone G, Torre ML, Vigo D. Bioencapsulation of oocytes and granulosa cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1817: 89–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Colombo M, Morselli MG, Tavares MR, Apparicio M, Luvoni GC. Developmental competence of domestic cat vitrified oocytes in 3D enriched culture conditions. Animals (Basel). 2019;9(6): 329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Axpe E, Oyen ML. Applications of alginate-based bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17: 1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tirella A, Magliaro C, Penta M, Troncone M, Pimentel R, Ahluwalia A. Sphyga: a multiparameter open source tool for fabricating smart and tunable hydrogel microbeads. Biofabrication. 2014;6(2): 025009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ferreira EM, Vireque AA, Adona PR, Meirelles FV, Ferriani RA, Navarro PAAS. Cytoplasmic maturation of bovine oocytes: Structural and biochemical modifications and acquisition of developmental competence. Theriogenology. 2009; 71: 836–8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chappel S. The role of mitochondria from mature oocyte to viable blastocyst. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013: 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhao XM, Min JT, Du WH, Hao HS, Liu Y, Qin T, et al. Melatonin enhances the in vitro maturation and developmental potential of bovine oocytes denuded of the cumulus oophorus. Zygote. 2015; 23(4):525–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hillen HS, Temiakov D, Cramer P. Structural basis of mitochondria transcription. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2018;25(9): 754–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Anderson S, Bankier AT, Barrell BG, de Bruijn MH, Coulson AR, Drouin J, et al. Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome. Nature 1981;290: 457–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.da Fonseca RR, Johnson WE, O'Brien SJ, Ramos MJ, Antunes A. The adaptive evolution of the mammalian mitochondrial genome. BMC Genomics. 2008;9: 119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jonckheere AI, Smeitink JAM, Rodembrurg RJT. Mitochondrial ATP Synthase: architecture, function and pathology. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2012;35: 211–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Li L, Baibakov B, Dean J. A subcortical maternal complex essential for preimplantation mouse embryogenesis. Dev Cell. 2008;15: 416–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bebbere D, Ariu F, Bogliolo L, Masala L, Murrone O, Fattorini M, et al. Expression of maternally derived KHDC3, NLRP5, OOEP and TLE6 is associated with oocyte developmental competence in the ovine species. BMC Dev Biol. 2014;14: 40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bebbere D, Masala L, Albertini DF, Ledda S. The subcortical maternal complex: multiple functions for one biological structure? Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33: 1431–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lu X, Gao Z, Qin D, Li L. A Maternal functional module in the mammalian oocyte-to-embryo transition. Trends Mol Med. 2017;23: 1014–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Monk D, Sanchez-Delgado M, Fisher R. NLRPs, the subcortical maternal complex and genomic imprinting. Reproduction. 2017;154: R161–R170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Qin D, Gao Z, Xiao Y, Zhang X, Ma H, Yu X, et al. The subcortical maternal complex protein Nlrp4f is involved in cytoplasmic lattice formation and organelle distribution. Development. 2019; 146(20). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Martino NA, Marzano G, Mangiacotti M, Miedico O, Sardanelli AM, Gnoni A, et al. Exposure to cadmium during in vitro maturation at environmental nanomolar levels impairs oocyte fertilization through oxidative damage: A large animal model study. Reprod Toxicol. 2017;69: 132–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Varnosfaderani SR, Hajian M, Jafarpour F, Zadegan FG, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Granulosa secreted factors improve the developmental competence of cumulus oocyte complexes from small antral follicles in sheep. PLOS ONE. 2020; 15(3): e0229043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Martino NA, Lacalandra GM, Uranio MF, Ambruosi B, Caira M, Silvestre F, et al. Oocyte mitochondrial bioenergy potential and oxidative stress: within-/between-subject, in vivo versus in vitro maturation, and age-related variations in a sheep model. Fertil Steril. 2012;97: 720–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pandolfi V, Pereira U, Dufresne M, Legallais C. Alginate-based cell microencapsulation for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Curr Pharm Des. 2017; 23: 3833–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cristea D, Krishtul S, Kuppusamy P, Baruch L, Machluf M, Blank A. New approach to measuring oxygen diffusion and consumption in encapsulated living cells, based on electron spin resonance microscopy. Acta Biomater. 2020; 101: 384–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tirella A, Vozzi F, Vozzi G, Ahluwalia A. PAM2 (piston assisted microsyringe): a new rapid prototyping technique for biofabrication of cell incorporated scaffolds. Tissue Eng. Part C: Methods 2011;17: 229–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Russ J. The Image Processing Handbook. 6th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 2012;9: 671–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dell’Aquila ME, Albrizio M, Maritato F, Minoia P, Hinrichs K. Meiotic competence of equine oocytes and pronucleus formation after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as related to granulosa cell apoptosis. Biol Reprod. 2003; 68(6):2065–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ariu F, Bogliolo L, Leoni G, Falchi L, Bebbere D, Nieddu SM, et al. Effects of caffeine treatment before vitrification on MPF and MAPK activity and spontaneous parthenogenetic activation of in vitro matured ovine oocytes. Cryo Letters 2014; 35(6):530–536. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Martino NA, Ariu F, Bebbere D, Filioli Uranio M, Chirico A, Marzano G, et al. , Supplementation with nanomolar concentrations of verbascoside during in vitro maturation improves embryo development by protecting the oocyte against oxidative stress: a large animal model study. Reprod Toxicol. 2016; 65: 204–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mastrorocco A, Martino NA, Marzano G, Lacalandra GM, Ciani E, Roelen BAJ, et al. The mycotoxin beauvericin induces oocyte mitochondrial dysfunction and affects embryo development in the juvenile sheep. Mol Reprod Dev. 2019; 86(10):1430–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Babayev E, Seli E. Oocyte mitochondrial function and reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27: 175–181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lee SH, Han JH, Cho SW, Cha KE, Park SE, Cha KY. Mitochondrial ATPase 6 gene expression in unfertilized oocytes and cleavage-stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5): 1001–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lee SH, Lee S, Jun HS, Jeong HJ, Cha WT, Cho S, et al. Expression of the mitochondrial ATPase6 gene and TFAM in Down syndrome. Mol Cells. 2002;15(2): 181–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira

5 May 2020

PONE-D-20-09540

One-step automated  method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation

for 3D in vitro maturation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, take in consideration all the reviewers' suggestions/corrections but especially those from reviewer #2 since he was the more stringent.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, Associate Professor, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide the name of the slaughterhouse.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1758-5082/6/2/025009/meta

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article titled “One-step automated method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation” the authors improved a 3D system already used in others cultures systems by turning it in an automated method that was proved to be stable during the 24 hours of in vitro maturation of ovine oocyte. Moreover, the authors demonstrated that a 3D in vitro maturation system can improve the ovine oocyte maturation. Compared to 2D usual system, the 3D system presented higher proportion of oocytes that completed the nuclear maturation and modulates the expression of genes previously described as markers of oocyte quality (i.e. TFAM, ATP6, ATP8, KHDC3, and NLRP5).

The work is potentially interesting with some level of novelty. However, the way the MS is written does not help me to follow the main idea of the authors. Therefore I do not recommend the MS for publication in its present form and I suggest a basic correction of the language (Introduction, Discussion) and a basic rewriting of the text (mainly Introduction and Discussion) in order to make to MS more reader friendly. I would like to give you some suggestions:

• Try to short the MS

• Check English

• Check repetition of abbreviations previously described (lines 152 and 180 for IVM, for example)

• Make the introduction more straight to your objective. It is too long, therefore in some point I got lost what is your point.

Other comments:

1. Line 144: Were ovaries from prepubertal lambs (under 6 months) also used in the experiments? It is not specified in the experiments (i.e., line 161), just in the “collection” section.

2. Figure 1 should be placed in the section “Alginate microbead fabrication” (Line 178: Figure 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E; Line 191: Figure 1F). It would help to comprehend the system.

3. How long was the process of automatized encapsulation of one COCs/microbead? For the experiment, you use 20/25 beads/well. How long the process takes to be ready (starting with COCs selection, COCs encapsulation, selection of microbeads containing one COC until place the plate in the incubator for 24h IVM)?

4. Figure 2E1 and 2F1 should be placed in the section “Three-dimensional (3D) in vitro maturation (IVM)” (Lines 225-227).

5. Line 222: how many microbeads containing COC were added in 400uL of IVM medium?

6. Line 226: how many COCs were added in 400uL of IVM medium for 2D culture system?

7. Line 229: What is the evaluation of “bioenergetic/oxidative status”?

8. For “Oocyte nuclear chromatin evaluation”, please specify the total number of oocytes analyzed per group (n=?), how many replicates, how many COCs per replicate per group.

9. For “Quantitative RT-PCR”, please specify the total number of oocytes analyzed per group (n=?), how many replicates, how many COCs per replicate per group.

10. Line 270: why only one reference gene was used (GAPDH)? How did you confirm it to be a reference gene?

11. How cumulus expansion rate was performed?

12. Why microbeads of 1000um were the desired size?

13. Add in the legend of Table 4 the information of needle size (508 uM) and alginate concentration (1%).

14. Line 331: Include the needle size used for the IVM study.

15. Lines 339-342: I would keep the results/table of maturation rates of COCs included in 2% alginate microbeads as supplementary results.

16. Line 409: Change “ithas” by “it has”.

17. Lines 418-419: Remove “developed to embryos at the preimplantation stages”, it wasn’t presented in this work.

18. Would this system applicable for in vitro embryo production?

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors described an optimization of the process of COC-­laden microbead by using a bioprinter (an automatic generator of hydrogel microspheres). The alginate microspheres produced were characterized in terms of size, shape and stability in culture conditions, using sheep as a large animal model. The results demonstrated high efficiency and reproducibility in the COC encapsulation, in which the cumulus integrity was preserved. After IVM, the 3D system supported oocyte meiotic maturation more efficiently than 2D control. In addition, 3D-matured oocytes exhibited increased expression of genes related to metabolic activation (TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8) and decreased expression of genes related to oocyte competence (KHDC3 and NLRP5) compared to 2D-matured oocytes. Based on the results, they concluded that the proposed method for the production of COC-laden microbeads has high reproducibility and efficiency and that oocyte competence is increased when maturation occurs in the 3D system.

Overall, the manuscript is well organized and the language is appropriate. However, in some parts of the Introduction and Methodology sessions, the text becomes wordy and repetitive.

The main question that has not been answered properly and, therefore, needs more arguments, is the statement and conclusion that the proposed method for 3D maturation improves the oocyte bioenergetic and development potential. Although different expression of genes related to metabolic activation and oocyte competence were observed when comparing oocytes matured in the traditional way (2D) and oocytes matured in 3D, no further evaluation was performed to prove that the difference in the level of the transcripts was actually reflected in different biological responses. For example, mitochondrial function and ATP production/consumption and embryonic development could have been assessed to confirm the increase in metabolic activation and oocyte competence, respectively. Thus, further data would be needed to support the conclusion.

Specific comments are:

Line 135: cytoplasmic competence was not investigated.

Line 138: For a better understanding of the development of the experiments, information related to the number of COC used, number of COC-laden microbeads cultured and number of structures evaluated in each analysis parameter should be presented in the methodology section, and not in the results. Likewise, the number of replicates in each experiment must also be informed.

Lines 144 and 161: author inform that ovaries from adult sheep (over 1 year) and prepubertal lambs (under 6 months) were recovered for the experiments, but only ovaries from adult cyclic ewes were used?

Line 164: minimum of how many layers?

Line 177: Have the authors previously tested the supply of oxygen and nutrients in the medium and the removal of waste or is it just an assumption? If it has been tested previously, quote the reference.

Line 229: Did the authors test the COC bioenergetic/oxidative status? These data were not presented.

Lines 278-279: microbead stability and microbead morphology were statistically compared between groups, however this analysis was not presented in the results (tables 1 and 4).

Line 315, Table 2: when was the analysis performed: immediately after formation or at the end of culture?

Line 320, Table 3: please inform if the evaluation was carried out at the end of the cultures.

Line 354, Table 5: even the highest observed M II rates are still low compared to the available literature. Do the authors have any explanation for this finding?

Line 363: the author can say that there was an increase in the expression of genes related to oocyte mitochondrial activity and embryonic development, but these parameters themselves were not evaluated. More data would be needed to make this statement.

Line 366: data differ from those reported in the table.

Line 374: please inform the P-value for the tendency.

Line 389: what does the author mean by oocyte competence? Meiotic competence was assessed in this study, but not competence for embryonic development. Please be more specific. Why has embryonic development not been evaluated?

Line 418: was embryo development evaluated?

Line 422-424: has a standardization study been carried out? If yes, present the data or quote the reference.

Line 426-427: these variables were not evaluated in the present study.

Line 438: oocyte meiotic competence?

Line 519: unnecessary information, as it is not related to the data presented in the study.

Reviewer #3: GENERAL COMMENTS

The authors devised a one-step automated system to encapsulate sheep cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) aiming for a 3D in vitro maturation (IVM) system, as opposed to the traditional 2D system. The 3D system would be a more physiological culture system as it would more closely preserve the natural COC-morphology and, therefore, would improve IVM outcomes. Authors have characterized the size and shape, and reproducibility, of microbeads produced with two different alginate concentrations, and also assessed the microbeads stability during a 24 h in vitro culture. IVM of COCs within the 3D microbeads in comparison to the usual 2D system (control) was evaluated in terms of oocyte nuclear maturation and expression of genes related with oocyte energy metabolism (mitochondrial function) and developmental competence (maternal effect genes related with oocyte competence). Authors determined the parameters for microbeads production which were repeatable and efficient, and stable in culture. Oocyte nuclear maturation increased in 3D culture and transcripts abundance were influenced by the culture system. The authors concluded that the 3D culture system using alginate microbeads was efficient and that it improved oocyte competence. The study is interesting, well designed, bringing new and promising results, and appears to have been appropriately conducted. Overall, the text is well written, organized and clear. There are few corrections, however, regarding some parts of the material and methods (MM) section in which some information is incomplete. Also, some information that should be in the Introduction is in the Discussion and some in the Results should be in MM. Some terms are not so adequate and conclusions are, in part, a little beyond what was presented in the Results, at least considering the way they were written. Therefore, the are suggestions to the text, which are addressed in the Specific comments.

Specific comments

Title OK

Absract

L29 – the term COC-laden for the microbeads seems a bit misleading, as laden gives the idea of something heavily loaded with something, and this is not the case as each microbead contains one COC, so the term laden would not be the best in this context. Probably individual COC encapsulated in microbeads or some other term would be better. If changed, do it throughout the text.

L41 – “… improves oocyte competence…” seems a strong conclusion in relation to the results, as few parameters were assessed (only nuclear maturation and expression of some genes); maybe improves some aspects/parameters of oocyte competence would be better. In the abstract, the conclusion put this way does not seem so much of a problem, as the size of the text may be limited, but this should be addressed, particularly in the final conclusions of the work.

Introduction

Some information regarding the genes chosen to be assessed as indicators of cytoplasmic competence should be given here. This information is only given in the Discussion.

Also, the sole expression of some mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes as indicators of cytoplasmic competence, as indicated in the text, does not seem the best description (L135-136); this assessment would be more a molecular competence, although these terms are sometimes used as synonyms; cytoplasmic competence would be best shown as organelle and/or cytoskeleton and/or specific proteins distribution in the cytoplasm and developmental competence would be best addressed using in vitro embryo development (either by IVF or parthenogenetic activation, for example). It would be better to be more specific and indicate that the assessment of the transcripts levels for selected maternal effect and mitochondrial function genes was chosen as an indicator of cytoplasmic or oocyte competence; or clearly indicate references that support that the chosen transcripts are directly related with and are markers of oocyte developmental competence.

As mentioned, the Introduction does not consider these factors – mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes – so it does not make clear the relation between cytoplasmic maturation and the assessments made in the experiments that were carried out.

Material and Methods

Part of the figures in Results include images of the setup of the system, and these parts of the figures could be placed in the MM. Sometimes only by the text it is difficult to understand how the microbeads were prepared, and mostly how the COCs individually were placed inside the microbeads. Therefore, the images referring to this, which are in Results, could be placed in MM to make it easier to understand the method.

L151 and L160 – As a suggestion, invert IVM medium and COC retrieval

L171-172 – are these notations correct – 5 divided by 20 and 1 divided by 100, and both between parenthesis?

L173 “…actuated…” would this be activated?

L176 – indicate here between parenthesis the range of desired dimensions

177 “…as well as…”

L185 – same as in L173

L205 – laden, could be changed to another term

L215 – here is when we finally get to know that there is one COC/microbead; it is not so easy to understand how, so referring to a figure here would be helpful.

L221-222 – how many microbeads with COCs inside in each well?

L226 – how many COCs/well?

L227 – time and temperature for chelation of calcium?

L229 – which bioenergetics/oxidative status? This was not measured, you did not analyse ROS levels or ATP levels or things like that, be more specific of what you´ve actually done

L229-232 No need to say “Those COCs destined for … and those destined for… underwent cumulus separation…” as all them were denuded. Just say that at the end of IVM COCs were denuded for analysis by incubation and so on, otherwise the sentence is repetitive.

L235 “… chromatin, oocytes…”

L245 – total RNA of how many oocytes / sample? What was the size of the oocyte pool? How many pools were used?

L257 – “The list of analysed genes is reported in Table 1” can be removed as the next sentence mentions the oligonucleotide primers and Table 1, so it is repetitive (or remove the Table 1 in parenthesis).

L276-277 the analysis of cumulus expansion rate is mentioned as analysed, but this analysis is not described; this description should be included in MM.

L279 morphology of the microbeads was also analysed, but no description of how this was done is provided; this should be included in MM.

Results

L291 – define “aspect ratio” and the meaning of being ≈1. Actually, a description of how the shape of the beads were analysed should be detailed in the MM

L294-298 – COC encapsulation rate and cumulus expansion rate – these should be explained how they were measured in MM; is there a difference between encapsulation efficiency, rate and levels? Specify what exactly each term means as this part is a bit confusing as it is.

L317 – as mentioned, the assessment of shape should be detailed in MM

L334 – cumulus expansion evaluation should be explained in MM

L338-339 – define what was considered abnormal chromatin configuration and activated oocytes in MM

L363 – “… improves oocyte energy and developmental potential” – actually, not quite this. Oocyte energy was not assessed, if so, there should be some measure of this parameter either by evaluating ATP production, mitochondrial activity or potential by specific staining, or other methods. You analysed the levels of transcripts for genes related with mitochondrial function, not directly oocyte energy. Otherwise, provide a reference that indicates that the expression of chosen genes can be directly linked to a cell´s energy levels. As there is nothing of this in the Introduction it is hard to find the direct connection authors are trying to make here. The same goes for developmental potential; no embryo production was evaluated. Again, the assessment was on transcript levels for maternal effect genes; could include reference indicating that expression of such genes are directly linked to developmental potential in vivo and/or in vitro; also here, no prior information on the genes is given in the Introduction. There was an effect on the transcript levels for genes related to mitochondrial function and maternal effect, which can affect developmental potential; this is an indirect assessment.

L366-367 – how were the 77 and 72 oocytes pooled in groups of 25 oocytes? this information should be in MM

L370 – what is SCMC? This is the first time in the manuscript this is mentioned and it only cited; then, it is only explained in the Discussion. This should be addressed in the Introduction or at least in the MM to justify the choice of genes to be studied (same for mitochondrial genes) and why they can be used as indicators of oocyte competence.

L374 – if there was a tendency what was the value of P?

L377 – it is not quite transcriptional activity; this is different from transcripts abundance or relative levels; probably best to use transcript abundance for genes related with mitochondrial function and maternal effects

Discussion

L389-390 – this part of the text mentions assessment of oocyte competence by cytogenetic and molecular analysis. Oocyte competence was not measured, but some parameters related to that, and cytogenetic analyses were not performed (the chromosomes were not studied, only chromatin configuration as indication of meiosis stage); nuclear maturation is not a cytogenetic analysis it is a cytological one. Attention with the use of some terms.

L418-419 – the way this part is written leads to the understanding that you have obtained the development of embryos; I understand that your results corroborate previous findings that showed such embryo development, but the phrasing is dubious, so it would be best to rephrase this part to make clear what exactly you are trying to inform.

L423 – this information is missing in MM

L438-443 – how does your MII rate compare to other 2D studies in sheep IVM? Is it similar to what was found in your 2D control system? And the rate of anomalies?

L448-459 – this entire part is more like a review explaining the genes that were studied; this could be (shorter even) in the Introduction and/or MM. Starting from the end of L459 is more like a discussion. Reorganize and shorten this part.

L471 – include “…could potentially improve oocyte mitochondria function” or provide reference that the increase in transcripts for these genes is a marker of enhanced mitochondrial function and make this information clear.

L472-512 this part mentions and then explains SCMC; this (also can be shorter) should be in the Introduction and/or MM (L370 just cites SCMC); the explanation on the genes goes up to L486; from here on in the text is more like a discussion contrasting your findings with their possible meaning for oocyte function. Reorganize and shorten this part.

L492- 493 you found accelerated degradation of maternal transcripts? Did you do kinetics of transcripts levels during IVM? What you found was that transcripts were decreased in 3D oocytes compared to 2D; rephrase this part to reflect what was observed.

L493 “…similar to the, as relationship…” it appears that there is some word or part missing after similar to the, is similar to the what?

L511 – “… potentially improved oocyte competence” or “… improved some parameters related with oocyte competence”, as assessment of competence was limited. It would be quite interesting in the future to evaluate effects on embryo development and quality and other functional parameters in oocytes and cumulus cells.

L516 - the conclusion oversteps a bit what was observed in the results, what was improved was nuclear maturation and the expression of some mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes; or make it clear throughout the text, with literature support, that these assessments (transcripts levels of chosen genes) can be used as reliable indicators of bioenergetic and developmental potential in oocytes. More studies are needed to further address the effects of the novel culture system on COC function, which seem to be, anyway, quite promising.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238812.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jun 2020

Dr. Antonella Mastrorocco

PhD in Functional and Applied Genomics and Proteomics

Department of Biosciences, Biotechnologies and Biopharmaceutics

University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy

Da: "PLOS ONE" <em@editorialmanager.com>

Oggetto: PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-20-09540] - [EMID:72524dc1c2ad6652]

Data: 5 maggio 2020 17:18:52 CEST

A: "Antonella Mastrorocco" <antonella.mastrorocco@uniba.it>

Rispondi a: "PLOS ONE" <plosone@plos.org>

PONE-D-20-09540

One-step automated method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, take in consideration all the reviewers' suggestions/corrections but especially those from reviewer #2 since he was the more stringent.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, Associate Professor, Ph. D.

Academic Editor PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide the name of the slaughterhouse.

The names of the slaughterhouses have been provided.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1758-5082/6/2/025009/meta

We reduced as much as possible the overlapping text with the manuscript by Tirella et al., 2014.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

We cited all our sources, and quoted or rephrased duplicated texts outside the methods section, as requested.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article titled “One-step automated method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation” the authors improved a 3D system already used in others cultures systems by turning it in an automated method that was proved to be stable during the 24 hours of in vitro maturation of ovine oocyte. Moreover, the authors demonstrated that a 3D in vitro maturation system can improve the ovine oocyte maturation. Compared to 2D usual system, the 3D system presented higher proportion of oocytes that completed the nuclear maturation and modulates the expression of genes previously described as markers of oocyte quality (i.e. TFAM, ATP6, ATP8, KHDC3, and NLRP5).

The work is potentially interesting with some level of novelty. However, the way the MS is written does not help me to follow the main idea of the authors. Therefore I do not recommend the MS for publication in its present form and I suggest a basic correction of the language (Introduction, Discussion) and a basic rewriting of the text (mainly Introduction and Discussion) in order to make to MS more reader friendly. I would like to give you some suggestions:

• Try to short the MS

• Check English

• Check repetition of abbreviations previously described (lines 152 and 180 for IVM, for example)

• Make the introduction more straight to your objective. It is too long, therefore in some point I got lost what is your point.

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments and suggestions. We modified the manuscript by shortening the Introduction to make it directly pertinent to our objective, as requested. In particular, we reduced the section of the bioprinting technology and moved the paragraph on expression of mitochondrial and maternal effect genes from Discussion to Introduction, to better clarify that these assessments were used as biomarkers of oocyte bioenergetic and developmental potential.

We have therefore modified the manuscript so that the main objective is now clearer which is to demonstrate that the described automated microencapsulation method, in which encapsulation of a single COC/bead occurs meanwhile the bead is formed, allows producing microbeads of standardized shape and size, able to preserve cumulus integrity and stable for 24h. Moreover, the 3D IVM system improves nuclear maturation and some aspects of cytoplasmic maturation, as assessed by bioenergetic/oxidative status and expression of molecular biomarkers of mitochondrial activity and developmental potential.

For bioenergetic potential, in the revised manuscript, also following the requests of the other reviewers, we added new confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis of mitochondria activity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and mitochondria/ROS colocalization, performed on a group of 3D versus 2D matured oocytes.

As biomarkers of oocyte developmental potential, we examined a panel of genes coding for the SubCortical Matermal Complex (SCMC), essential biomarker of oocyte meiotic spindle formation and positioning and for zygote progression beyond the first embryonic cell divisions (Li et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2018; Bebbere et al., 2014; 2016; Monk et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2019).

The English language of the manuscript has been revised by a native speaker, expert in biomedical sciences.

Repetitions have been reduced and abbreviations have been checked, as requested

Other comments:

1. Line 144: Were ovaries from prepubertal lambs (under 6 months) also used in the experiments? It is not specified in the experiments (i.e., line 161), just in the “collection” section.

Ovaries from prepubertal lambs were not used in the present study. This indication has been removed.

2. Figure 1 should be placed in the section “Alginate microbead fabrication” (Line 178: Figure 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E; Line 191: Figure 1F). It would help to comprehend the system.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Figure 1 has now been placed in the section “Alginate microbead fabrication”.

3. How long was the process of automatized encapsulation of one COCs/microbead? For the experiment, you use 20/25 beads/well. How long the process takes to be ready (starting with COCs selection, COCs encapsulation, selection of microbeads containing one COC until place the plate in the incubator for 24h IVM)?

The overall process, including IVM medium and IVM culture plate preparation, COC retrieval and selection, COC encapsulation, selection of microbeads containing one COC and placement in culture, takes around 2 hours. This time interval is the same as that used in the 2D system. Infact, in both systems, equilibration of IVM medium (1hour) and culture plate (30 min) in the incubator under controlled temperature (38.5°C) and gas atmosphere (5%CO2 in air) is important. This information has been added to the manuscript.

4. Figure 2E1 and 2F1 should be placed in the section “Three-dimensional (3D) in vitro maturation (IVM)” (Lines 225-227).

Figure 2 has been modified and included in the MM section.

5. Line 222: how many microbeads containing COC were added in 400uL of IVM medium?

A mean number of 20-25 COC-microbeads has been added in each well of a 4-well plate with 400µL of IVM medium. This detail has now been included in the methods section, as requested.

6. Line 226: how many COCs were added in 400uL of IVM medium for 2D culture system?

Each well contained 20-25 COCs. This detail has been addedd to the methods section. The same number of COCs per well was added for both culture systems in order to provide comparable conditions.

7. Line 229: What is the evaluation of “bioenergetic/oxidative status”?

This specific sentence has been modified, as also suggested by other reviewers. Moreover, in the revised manuscript, we added confocal laser scanning microscopy data on the effects of 3D IVM on oocyte bioenergetic/oxidative status, expressed as mitochondria activity, intracellular ROS levels and mitochondria/ROS colocalization. This part has been implemented in Methods, Results and Discussion.

8. For “Oocyte nuclear chromatin evaluation”, please specify the total number of oocytes analyzed per group (n=?), how many replicates, how many COCs per replicate per group.

For oocyte nuclear chromatin evaluation, the total number of analyzed oocytes (now n=349) has been indicated in the Results section “3D IVM improves oocyte maturation rate”. This number has been now reduced because, according to the reviewer suggestion in point 15, the results/table of maturation rates in 2% alginate microbeads have been removed from the text and are now presented as a supplementary file (S1 File). The total number of analyzed oocytes per treatment group has been indicated in table 5. For each experiment and condition, at least six replicates were performed, in which a replicate is intended as a group of 20-25 COCs cultured for IVM in one well of a 4-well Nunc plate. The number of replicates (6 to 9) has now been included.

9. For “Quantitative RT-PCR”, please specify the total number of oocytes analyzed per group (n=?), how many replicates, how many COCs per replicate per group.

For quantitative RT-PCR, three additional replicates per group were performed. In these experiments, for each replicate of each group, 30-35 COC were cultured under 3D versus 2D IVM and RNA samples were extracted from pools of 20-26 matured oocytes/group. This information has been added in the text in the methods section.

10. Line 270: why only one reference gene was used (GAPDH)? How did you confirm it to be a reference gene?

In order to quantify gene expression, qRT-PCR was used. The expression levels ACTB and GAPDH were originally chosen for normalization, but the expression of ACTB was rather dynamic and not suitable for normalization. Including both ACTB and GAPDH was actually less stable than the use of only GAPDH. Therefore, only GAPDH was used for normalization of the expression levels of the target genes.

11. How cumulus expansion rate was performed?

In this study, cumulus expansion analysis was performed while the COC was within the microbead and it was confirmed after alginate removal (i.e. after microbead dissolution by Ca2+ chelation with 2% w/v Na citrate in IVM medium). In both times, cumulus expansion was visually assessed by stereoscopic microscopy. COC expansion was assessed by cumulus morphology. Indeed, cumuli with continuous edges, consisting of cells in close contact each other, were classified as “compact”, whereas cumuli showing discontinuous edges following cell detachment and production of a viscous extracellular matrix were classified as “expanded”. The percentage of expanded COCs/total COCs was reported. This information has been added in the methods section of the manuscript.

12. Why microbeads of 1000um were the desired size?

Immature COCs from adult ewes are 200-300 μm in diameter. After IVM, COCs reach around 500-600 μm in diameter due to cumulus expansion. For this reason, we planned to produce microbeads of 1000 μm in radius as each of them could suitably house an expanded ovine COC. Moreover, in microbead fabrication experiments, we found that microbeads of radius size closer to 1 (1070.39 ± 88.23 μm) also showed aspect ratio closer to 1 (1.21 ± 0.10), indicating an ideal sphere (Russ, 2011; Tirella et al., 2014; Table 2).

13. Add in the legend of Table 4 the information of needle size (508 μM) and alginate concentration (1%).

This information has been added in Table 4, as requested.

14. Line 331: Include the needle size used for the IVM study.

This information has been added, as requested.

15. Lines 339-342: I would keep the results/table of maturation rates of COCs included in 2% alginate microbeads as supplementary results.

Table 5 has been modified in order to keep the results of COCs in 2% alginate microbeads as supplementary results. A Supplementary file (namely S1 File) has been provided.

16. Line 409: Change “ithas” by “it has”.

The sentence has been corrected.

17. Lines 418-419: Remove “developed to embryos at the preimplantation stages”, it wasn’t presented in this work.

This part has been removed as data on embryo development were not presented in this work.

18. Would this system applicable for in vitro embryo production?

We have reasons to think that our system would be applicable for in vitro embryo production. For the moment, we analyzed oocyte ability to mature and to reach a suitable bioenergetic/oxidative status (increased expression of TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 and increased mitochondrial activity and ROS generation ability). Moreover, we analyzed molecular aspects of oocyte cytoplasmic maturation which have been reported as biomarkers of oocyte developmental competence, e.g. the modulation of expression of genes coding for SCMC complex, a protein complex essential biomarker for oocyte meiotic spindle formation and positioning and for zygote progression beyond the first embryonic cell divisions (Li et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2018; Bebbere et al., 2014; 2016; Monk et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2019). Our next aim will be to demonstrate the effectiveness of our 3D IVM system on in vitro embryo production.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors described an optimization of the process of COC-¬laden microbead by using a bioprinter (an automatic generator of hydrogel microspheres). The alginate microspheres produced were characterized in terms of size, shape and stability in culture conditions, using sheep as a large animal model. The results demonstrated high efficiency and reproducibility in the COC encapsulation, in which the cumulus integrity was preserved. After IVM, the 3D system supported oocyte meiotic maturation more efficiently than 2D control. In addition, 3D-matured oocytes exhibited increased expression of genes related to metabolic activation (TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8) and decreased expression of genes related to oocyte competence (KHDC3 and NLRP5) compared to 2D-matured oocytes. Based on the results, they concluded that the proposed method for the production of COC-laden microbeads has high reproducibility and efficiency and that oocyte competence is increased when maturation occurs in the 3D system.

Overall, the manuscript is well organized and the language is appropriate. However, in some parts of the Introduction and Methodology sessions, the text becomes wordy and repetitive.

The main question that has not been answered properly and, therefore, needs more arguments, is the statement and conclusion that the proposed method for 3D maturation improves the oocyte bioenergetic and development potential. Although different expression of genes related to metabolic activation and oocyte competence were observed when comparing oocytes matured in the traditional way (2D) and oocytes matured in 3D, no further evaluation was performed to prove that the difference in the level of the transcripts was actually reflected in different biological responses. For example, mitochondrial function and ATP production/consumption and embryonic development could have been assessed to confirm the increase in metabolic activation and oocyte competence, respectively. Thus, further data would be needed to support the conclusion.

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments and for giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscript.

In order to further support the conclusion that the proposed method of 3D maturation improves the oocyte bioenergetic potential, in the revised version, we added new data on effects of the proposed 3D IVM method on oocyte mitochondrial function, expressed in terms of mitochondrial activity, intracellular ROS levels and mitochondria/ROS colocalization after staining with mitochondria- and ROS-specific probes and confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis. This part has been added to the text. New sections for Methods, Results, a new figure (Figure 3) and Discussion sections have been provided. These new data are in agreement with those previously provided on effects of 3D IVM on expression levels of genes coding for TFAM, and the complex V of the respiratory chain (ATP6 and ATP8). Indeed, expression of thes genes has been reported as biomarker of healthy oocyte energy status (Zhao et al., 2014).

Moreover, we analyzed the expression of genes coding for the SCMC protein complex because it is reported as a fundamental biomarker for zygote progression beyond the first embryonic cell divisions (Li et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2018; Bebbere et al., 2014; 2016; Monk et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2019). Our next aim will be to demonstrate the effects of our 3D IVM system on in vitro embryo production.

Specific comments are:

Line 135: cytoplasmic competence was not investigated.

As reported by several studies (Ferreira et al., 2009; Van Blerkom 2008; Sirard 2001; Stojkovic et al., 2001; Davidson 1986), cytoplasmic maturation (or competence) consists of structural (organelle redistribution and cytoskeleton dynamics) and molecular aspects (transcription, storage and processing of maternal mRNA). In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis of the distribution patterns and activity of mitochondria, intracellular ROS localization and mitochondria/ROS colocalization of oocytes matured in the 3D versus the 2D systems. The mitochondria distribution pattern is a parameter of cytoplasmic competence/maturity, as it is reported that in most of mammalian species oocyte mitochondria during IVM move to sites of energy demand such as the pericortical region and the area surrounding the meiotic spindle (Martino et al., 2012). In our experiments, this parameter did not change between methods. However, quantification analyses revealed that mitochondria activity and ROS levels were significantly increased after 3D IVM. Colocalization values remained stable, indicating that observed increased ROS mostly colocalize with mitochondria, thus they are not signal of oxidative stress conditions rather of well-balanced redox status. Data are in agreement with molecular data on TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 gene expression which can be considered as predictive biomarkers of oocyte mitochondrial function (Zhao et al., 2014). In our opinion, these observations are relevant because cytoplasmic maturation has structural and functional aspects.

Line 138: For a better understanding of the development of the experiments, information related to the number of COC used, number of COC-laden microbeads cultured and number of structures evaluated in each analysis parameter should be presented in the methodology section, and not in the results. Likewise, the number of replicates in each experiment must also be informed.

This information has been provided. Some information has been provided as methods; other information has been provided as results, because they indicate numbers of tested samples.

Lines 144 and 161: author inform that ovaries from adult sheep (over 1 year) and prepubertal lambs (under 6 months) were recovered for the experiments, but only ovaries from adult cyclic ewes were used?

The sentence has been corrected. Indeed, only ovaries from adult cyclic ewes were used in the present study.

Line 164: minimum of how many layers?

As reported in previous literature on sheep IVM and IVEP, COCs with a minimum number of 3 cumulus cell layers were selected and included in the study (Varnosfaderani et al., 2020). This information has been included in the revised manuscript.

Line 177: Have the authors previously tested the supply of oxygen and nutrients in the medium and the removal of waste or is it just an assumption? If it has been tested previously, quote the reference.

The sentence has been modified and two references have been added, as suggested (Cristea et al.,2020; Pandolfi et al., 2017).

Line 229: Did the authors test the COC bioenergetic/oxidative status? These data were not presented.

In the revised version of the manuscript, new data on COC bioenergetic/oxidative status are presented. These data are derived from matured oocytes of some replicates of the 3D versus 2D IVM study which had been stained for mitochondria and ROS. To provide appropriate response to reviewers, stained oocytes underwent confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis and statistics.

Lines 278-279: microbead stability and microbead morphology were statistically compared between groups, however this analysis was not presented in the results (tables 1 and 4).

We modified the Statistics section and the two tables of morphology (Table 2) and stability (Table 4), as requested.

Line 315, Table 2: when was the analysis performed: immediately after formation or at the end of culture?

Analysis in Table 2 was performed immediately after microbead formation. The title of the table 2 and the results section have been modified for clarity.

Line 320, Table 3: please inform if the evaluation was carried out at the end of the cultures.

COC encapsulation rate was assessed before IVM whereas cumulus espansion rate was analyzed after IVM. The related sentences have been modified in the text, accordingly, for clarity.

Line 354, Table 5: even the highest observed M II rates are still low compared to the available literature. Do the authors have any explanation for this finding?

Our MII rates, even not very high, are comparable with those reported in current literature. In the sheep, significant variations have been reported in IVM efficiency due to intrinsec (donor age and breed, nutrition status and general health conditions) and extrinsec factors (different laboratory procedures; Paramio and Izquierdo, 2014; Zhu et al., 2018).

Line 363: the author can say that there was an increase in the expression of genes related to oocyte mitochondrial activity and embryonic development, but these parameters themselves were not evaluated. More data would be needed to make this statement.

In the revised version of the manuscript, new data on effects of 3D IVM on oocyte bioenergetic/oxidative status have been provided. This paragraph has been modified accordingly.

Line 366: data differ from those reported in the table.

These data are referred to matured oocytes obtained from three additional replicates. These oocytes are different from those reported in table 5. This information has been added in the results, for clarity.

Line 374: please inform the P-value for the tendency.

P-values of the three genes (OOEP1, OOEP2, TLE6) for which no statistically significant differences were observed, have been added.

Line 389: what does the author mean by oocyte competence? Meiotic competence was assessed in this study, but not competence for embryonic development. Please be more specific. Why has embryonic development not been evaluated?

The terms “oocyte competence” have been changed to “oocyte nuclear and cytoplamic maturation”.

Competence for embryonic development was assessed by analyzing the expression of SCMC genes, which are very specific biomarker of oocyte developmental competence (Bebbere et al., 2014). Our sentences on this aspect, have been changed throughout the text, in order to underline the biomarker role of these genes.

Although highly interesting, the culture of embryos was somewhat out of scope with respect to our objectives and will certainly be considered in future studies.

Line 418: was embryo development evaluated?

The authors thank the reviewer for this comment. This sentence was wrong, and it has been modified.

For the moment, embryo development was not evaluated. It will be part of our next aims.

Line 422-424: has a standardization study been carried out? If yes, present the data or quote the reference.

By standardized we mean that due to the homogeneous microbead size, it was possible to include numbers of COCs, in each culture well, comparable to those in our conventional 2D system. The sentence has been modified for clarity.

Line 426-427: these variables were not evaluated in the present study.

We modified the sentence by changing the word “guarantee” with the word “try to ensure”.

Line 438: oocyte meiotic competence?

This definition has been corrected, as suggested.

Line 519: unnecessary information, as it is not related to the data presented in the study.

This information has been removed, as requested.

Reviewer #3: GENERAL COMMENTS

The authors devised a one-step automated system to encapsulate sheep cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) aiming for a 3D in vitro maturation (IVM) system, as opposed to the traditional 2D system. The 3D system would be a more physiological culture system as it would more closely preserve the natural COC-morphology and, therefore, would improve IVM outcomes. Authors have characterized the size and shape, and reproducibility, of microbeads produced with two different alginate concentrations, and also assessed the microbeads stability during a 24 h in vitro culture. IVM of COCs within the 3D microbeads in comparison to the usual 2D system (control) was evaluated in terms of oocyte nuclear maturation and expression of genes related with oocyte energy metabolism (mitochondrial function) and developmental competence (maternal effect genes related with oocyte competence). Authors determined the parameters for microbeads production which were repeatable and efficient, and stable in culture. Oocyte nuclear maturation increased in 3D culture and transcripts abundance were influenced by the culture system. The authors concluded that the 3D culture system using alginate microbeads was efficient and that it improved oocyte competence. The study is interesting, well designed, bringing new and promising results, and appears to have been appropriately conducted. Overall, the text is well written, organized and clear. There are few corrections, however, regarding some parts of the material and methods (MM) section in which some information is incomplete. Also, some information that should be in the Introduction is in the Discussion and some in the Results should be in MM. Some terms are not so adequate and conclusions are, in part, a little beyond what was presented in the Results, at least considering the way they were written. Therefore, the are suggestions to the text, which are addressed in the Specific comments.

We thank the reviewer for her/his positive comments and for the suggestions which allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Specific comments

Title OK

Abstract

L29 – the term COC-laden for the microbeads seems a bit misleading, as laden gives the idea of something heavily loaded with something, and this is not the case as each microbead contains one COC, so the term laden would not be the best in this context. Probably individual COC encapsulated in microbeads or some other term would be better. If changed, do it throughout the text.

This term is commonly used in the literature to mean that gels are loaded with cells or cell structures (1. A combinatorial cell-laden gel microarray for inducing osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Alireza Dolatshahi-Pirouz, Mehdi Nikkhah, Akhilesh K. Gaharwar, Basma Hashmi, Enrico Guermani, Hamed Aliabadi, Gulden Camci-Unal, Thomas Ferrante, Morten Foss, Donald E. Ingber & Ali Khademhosseini. Scientific Reports volume 4, Article number: 3896 (2015) 2. Cell-laden alginate dialdehyde–gelatin hydrogels formed in 3D printed sacrificial gel Dalia Dranseikiene, Stefan Schrüfer, Dirk W. Schubert, Supachai Reakasame & Aldo R. Boccaccini Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine volume 31, Article number: 31 (2020)).

However, we do appreciate the Reviewer’s concern that it may lead to a misunderstanding about the number of COCs. Henceforth, for the sake of brevity, we refer to the microbeads containing a COC as "COC-microbeads".

L41 – “… improves oocyte competence…” seems a strong conclusion in relation to the results, as few parameters were assessed (only nuclear maturation and expression of some genes); maybe improves some aspects/parameters of oocyte competence would be better. In the abstract, the conclusion put this way does not seem so much of a problem, as the size of the text may be limited, but this should be addressed, particularly in the final conclusions of the work.

We thank the reviewer and we have modified the abstract and conclusions as suggested.

Introduction

Some information regarding the genes chosen to be assessed as indicators of cytoplasmic competence should be given here. This information is only given in the Discussion.

Also, the sole expression of some mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes as indicators of cytoplasmic competence, as indicated in the text, does not seem the best description (L135-136); this assessment would be more a molecular competence, although these terms are sometimes used as synonyms; cytoplasmic competence would be best shown as organelle and/or cytoskeleton and/or specific proteins distribution in the cytoplasm and developmental competence would be best addressed using in vitro embryo development (either by IVF or parthenogenetic activation, for example). It would be better to be more specific and indicate that the assessment of the transcripts levels for selected maternal effect and mitochondrial function genes was chosen as an indicator of cytoplasmic or oocyte competence; or clearly indicate references that support that the chosen transcripts are directly related with and are markers of oocyte developmental competence.

As mentioned, the Introduction does not consider these factors – mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes – so it does not make clear the relation between cytoplasmic maturation and the assessments made in the experiments that were carried out.

We thank the reviewer for these suggestions.

We modified the Introduction, by shortening it, as also suggested by reviewer 1, and by moving from the Discussion some information concerning genes chosen as indicators of oocyte bioenergetic and developmental competence. We indicated references of papers reporting that these genes are biomarkers of matured oocyte bioenergetic and developmental potential, respectively.

Material and Methods

Part of the figures in Results include images of the setup of the system, and these parts of the figures could be placed in the MM. Sometimes only by the text it is difficult to understand how the microbeads were prepared, and mostly how the COCs individually were placed inside the microbeads. Therefore, the images referring to this, which are in Results, could be placed in MM to make it easier to understand the method.

We moved Figure 1 to the MM section, in the paragraph “Alginate microbead fabrication”, as suggested.

L151 and L160 – As a suggestion, invert IVM medium and COC retrieval

These two paragraphs have been inverted, as suggested.

L171-172 – are these notations correct – 5 divided by 20 and 1 divided by 100, and both between parenthesis?

The notations indicated respectively the range of flow rate and pressure. We changed the notations to (5-20 ± 1) μLs−1 and (1-100 ± 0.4) kPa.

L173 “…actuated…” would this be activated?

We rephrased line 173 to “as the extrusion system is activated”, for better clarity.

L176 – indicate here between parenthesis the range of desired dimensions

We have added this information.

177 “…as well as…”

We have corrected the sentence.

L185 – same as in L173

We modified “actuated” with “activated”.

L205 – laden, could be changed to another term

We changed with COC-microbead.

L215 – here is when we finally get to know that there is one COC/microbead; it is not so easy to understand how, so referring to a figure here would be helpful.

As, also requested by reviewer 1, Figure 2 has been moved to the MM section, paragraph “Alginate COC-microbead generation”.

L221-222 – how many microbeads with COCs inside in each well?

This information has been added.

L226 – how many COCs/well?

This information has been added.

L227 – time and temperature for chelation of calcium?

This information was added.

L229 – which bioenergetics/oxidative status? This was not measured, you did not analyse ROS levels or ATP levels or things like that, be more specific of what you´ve actually done

In the revised version of the manuscript, new data on oocyte bioenergetic/oxidative status have been added.

L229-232 No need to say “Those COCs destined for … and those destined for… underwent cumulus separation…” as all them were denuded. Just say that at the end of IVM COCs were denuded for analysis by incubation and so on, otherwise the sentence is repetitive.

Thank you, the sentence has been modified.

L235 “… chromatin, oocytes…”

The sentence has been corrected

L245 – total RNA of how many oocytes / sample? What was the size of the oocyte pool? How many pools were used?

This information has been added.

L257 – “The list of analysed genes is reported in Table 1” can be removed as the next sentence mentions the oligonucleotide primers and Table 1, so it is repetitive (or remove the Table 1 in parenthesis).

This part has been corrected, as suggested.

L276-277 the analysis of cumulus expansion rate is mentioned as analysed, but this analysis is not described; this description should be included in MM.

Description on COC expansion analysis has been included in MM, as requested.

L279 morphology of the microbeads was also analysed, but no description of how this was done is provided; this should be included in MM.

Microbead morphology was assessed by evaluating their dimensions (radius) and the shape descriptor “aspect ratio” (according to Russ et al., 2011), as reported by Tyrella et al., 2014. The sentence, in the paragraph “Microbeads morphological characterization and stability” has been modified for clarity.

Results

L291 – define “aspect ratio” and the meaning of being ≈1. Actually, a description of how the shape of the beads were analysed should be detailed in the MM

The requested definitions have been added in the results section. The description of how the shape of the beads was analysed has been detailed in MM, as requested.

L294-298 – COC encapsulation rate and cumulus expansion rate – these should be explained how they were measured in MM; is there a difference between encapsulation efficiency, rate and levels? Specify what exactly each term means as this part is a bit confusing as it is.

The sentence has been modified, for clarity. The terms “encapsulation efficiency” and “cumulus expansion efficiency” have been better clarified in MM. The “encapsulation efficiency” was measured before IVM as “encapsulation rate” which was the proportion of COCs uploaded in the Sphyga syringe which came out as included in microbeads in a 1/1 proportion. Those COCs which resulted non-included in microbeads or included in a more than 1/1 proportion (in groups of 2 or more COCs) were excluded as they represent the “No” response. The “cumulus expansion efficiency” was measured after IVM as “cumulus expansion rate” which was the proportion of encapsulated COCs whose cumulus expanded after culture. Those COCs which remained compact after culture were excluded as they represent the “No” response.

L317 – as mentioned, the assessment of shape should be detailed in MM

The assessment of microbead shape has been further detailed in MM, as requested.

L334 – cumulus expansion evaluation should be explained in MM

The cumulus expansion evaluation method has been further explained in MM, as requested.

L338-339 – define what was considered abnormal chromatin configuration and activated oocytes in MM

In the MM section we have now included criteria for abnormal chromatin configuration and activated oocytes, as requested.

Oocytes showing either multipolar meiotic spindle or irregular chromatin clumps or no chromatin were considered as abnormal (Dell’Aquila et al., 2003). Oocytes with the first polar body extruded and at least one pronucleus as a sign of spontaneous parthenogenetic activation were indicated as activated. These sentences have been added in the MM section.

As requested by reviewer 1 (point n.15), we removed the line of oocytes matured in 2% alginate microbeads which had activated oocytes. These data are now reported in Supplementary file (S1 File).

No effects of 3D vs 2D IVM systems were noticed on the incidence of these chromatin configurations.

L363 – “… improves oocyte energy and developmental potential” – actually, not quite this. Oocyte energy was not assessed, if so, there should be some measure of this parameter either by evaluating ATP production, mitochondrial activity or potential by specific staining, or other methods. You analysed the levels of transcripts for genes related with mitochondrial function, not directly oocyte energy. Otherwise, provide a reference that indicates that the expression of chosen genes can be directly linked to a cell´s energy levels. As there is nothing of this in the Introduction it is hard to find the direct connection authors are trying to make here. The same goes for developmental potential; no embryo production was evaluated. Again, the assessment was on transcript levels for maternal effect genes; could include reference indicating that expression of such genes are directly linked to developmental potential in vivo and/or in vitro; also here, no prior information on the genes is given in the Introduction. There was an effect on the transcript levels for genes related to mitochondrial function and maternal effect, which can affect developmental potential; this is an indirect assessment.

In the revised version of the manuscript, data of mitochondria distribution pattern and activity, intracellular ROS localization and mitochondria/ROS colocalization of oocytes matured in the 3D versus the 2D systems, stained with specific probes and analyzed under confocal laser scanning microscopy were included. In our experiments, mitochondrial activity and ROS levels were significantly increased after 3D IVM. These observations are in agreement with our findings of increased relative abundance of TFAM, ATP6 and ATP8 mRNAs. Thus, the expression of these genes can be linked to cell energy levels (Zhao et al., 2014). We added this information in the Introduction in order to make appropriate connection, as suggested.

Concerning embryo developmental potential, unfortunately no embryo production was performed in this study. However, as suggested by the reviewer, we reinforced the concepts that assessment of “oocyte developmental potential” was based on particularly specific transcript levels for maternal effect genes which are predictive biomarkers of the zygote’s ability to undertake first cleavage stages and included all references indicating that expression of such genes are directly linked to developmental potential in vivo and/or in vitro (Bebbere et al., 2014). Also here, information on these genes has been added in the Introduction, as suggested.

L366-367 – how were the 77 and 72 oocytes pooled in groups of 25 oocytes? this information should be in MM

This information has been added.

L370 – what is SCMC? This is the first time in the manuscript this is mentioned and it only cited; then, it is only explained in the Discussion. This should be addressed in the Introduction or at least in the MM to justify the choice of genes to be studied (same for mitochondrial genes) and why they can be used as indicators of oocyte competence.

The role of the analyzed genes has been addressed in the Introduction.

L374 – if there was a tendency what was the value of P?

Requested P-values have been included.

L377 – it is not quite transcriptional activity; this is different from transcripts abundance or relative levels; probably best to use transcript abundance for genes related with mitochondrial function and maternal effects

We thank the reviewer and we changed the title of the figure (now “Fig 4), as suggested.

Discussion

L389-390 – this part of the text mentions assessment of oocyte competence by cytogenetic and molecular analysis. Oocyte competence was not measured, but some parameters related to that, and cytogenetic analyses were not performed (the chromosomes were not studied, only chromatin configuration as indication of meiosis stage); nuclear maturation is not a cytogenetic analysis it is a cytological one. Attention with the use of some terms.

We agree with the reviewer and we thank her/him for this correction. Actually, we performed a “cytological analysis”. Indeed, mammalian oocyte nuclei exhibit characteristic chromatin configurations, which are subject to dynamic modifications through oogenesis and meiotic maturation. During meiotic arrest at the diplotene stage, the chromosomes form a loose chromatin mass. The decondensed configuration of chromatin then undergoes profound rearrangements leading to formation of groups of chromosomes which can be seen as distributed on metaphase plates or migrating through meiotic spindle fibers. Analysis of these configurations are “cytological” and not “cytogenetic” analysis which are performed on single chromosomes. This part has been modified.

L418-419 – the way this part is written leads to the understanding that you have obtained the development of embryos; I understand that your results corroborate previous findings that showed such embryo development, but the phrasing is dubious, so it would be best to rephrase this part to make clear what exactly you are trying to inform.

The sentence has been rephrased, as requested.

L423 – this information is missing in MM

This information has been added also in MM.

L438-443 – how does your MII rate compare to other 2D studies in sheep IVM? Is it similar to what was found in your 2D control system? And the rate of anomalies?

Our MII rates, even not very high, are comparable with current available literature. In the sheep, significat variations are reported in IVM efficiency due to intrinsic (donor age and breed, nutrition status and general health conditions) and extrinsic factors (different laboratory procedures, such as. i.e. serum supplement, hormones, antibiotics etc. (Paramio and Izquierdo, 2014; Zhu et al., 2018)

L448-459 – this entire part is more like a review explaining the genes that were studied; this could be (shorter even) in the Introduction and/or MM. Starting from the end of L459 is more like a discussion. Reorganize and shorten this part.

This part has been reorganized and shortened, as suggested.

L471 – include “…could potentially improve oocyte mitochondria function” or provide reference that the increase in transcripts for these genes is a marker of enhanced mitochondrial function and make this information clear.

The sentence has been modified and supporting references have been added, as suggested.

L472-512 this part mentions and then explains SCMC; this (also can be shorter) should be in the Introduction and/or MM (L370 just cites SCMC); the explanation on the genes goes up to L486; from here on in the text is more like a discussion contrasting your findings with their possible meaning for oocyte function. Reorganize and shorten this part.

This part has been reorganized and shortened, as suggested.

L492- 493 you found accelerated degradation of maternal transcripts? Did you do kinetics of transcripts levels during IVM? What you found was that transcripts were decreased in 3D oocytes compared to 2D; rephrase this part to reflect what was observed.

This part has been rephrased to reflect what was observed and the correlation between our data and those reported by Li et al., 2008 and Bebbere et al., 2014.

L493 “…similar to the, as relationship…” it appears that there is some word or part missing after similar to the, is similar to the what?

The reviewer is right. The sentence had some missing parts and has been rephrased.

L511 – “… potentially improved oocyte competence” or “… improved some parameters related with oocyte competence”, as assessment of competence was limited. It would be quite interesting in the future to evaluate effects on embryo development and quality and other functional parameters in oocytes and cumulus cells.

The sentence has been rephrased, as indicated.

L516 - the conclusion oversteps a bit what was observed in the results, what was improved was nuclear maturation and the expression of some mitochondrial function and maternal effect genes; or make it clear throughout the text, with literature support, that these assessments (transcripts levels of chosen genes) can be used as reliable indicators of bioenergetic and developmental potential in oocytes. More studies are needed to further address the effects of the novel culture system on COC function, which seem to be, anyway, quite promising.

The conlusions have been modified in order to be more related to what is described in the results.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira

2 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-09540R1

One-step automated bioprinting-based  method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation  for 3D in vitromaturation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please authors, carefully consider each of the questions raised by reviewers # 1 and # 2.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 16 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, Associate Professor, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article titled “One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation” has been substantially improved after the author’s modification. The text is more reader friendly, the aim of the manuscript is clearer, and some information, previously missing, has been added in the text. I am satisfied with the answers addressed to my earlier comments.

In this new submission, the author’s included new analysis to assess the bioenergetic/oxidative status of the oocytes aimed to make cleared the effect of the 3D IVM system in the mitochondria activity, intracellular ROS levels, and mitochondria/ROS colocalization.

Theses analyses corroborates to the data presented earlier, however the discussion of these results need to be improved. The lines 484-486 of the discussion session need reference. And the effect of higher mitochondria activity and ROS levels in the oocyte from 3D-IVM system need to be discussed.

Specific comments:

Line 37: Change “that” by “than”.

Line 251-252: The definition of spontaneous parthenogenetic activation should be reviewed. Moreover, this classification of activated oocytes was not presented in the results.

Lines 371-374: the information in these lines is conflicting. First it says there was a significant difference between 3D and 2D groups in relation to oocyte abnormal chromatin configuration. Followed by a sentence that says: no effect of different systems was noticed on the incidence of specific abnormal chromatin configurations. In figure 5, it shows a difference between 3D and 2D groups in relation to oocyte abnormal chromatin configuration. Please, confirm the information in these lines.

Lines 404-405: Remove the sentence “Oocytes matured in 3D IVM showed significantly increased mitochondrial activity and intracellular ROS levels.” This is not information for a legend.

Lines 413-414: Remove the sentence “Increased MitoTracker (C1 versus C2) and DCF fluorescent intensity (D1 versus D2) are visible in 3D IVM oocytes.” This is not information for a legend.

Line 416: I would consider changing “improves oocyte molecular maturation” by “modulates oocyte gene expression”. The term “molecular maturation” refers to many other processes and transcripts that were not investigated in this study.

Line 427: Please, consider to change the expression “tended to decrease” by “was similar between groups”. The p-values informed are not consistent with a classification as tendency.

Line 511: Remove the words “reduction (although not significant) of”

Lines 511-514: I do not understand the comparison between the data from the present study with the GDF-9 quantification analysis by Morselli et al. [34].

Reviewer #2: All the questions raised were appropriately answered by the authors and the changes were incorporated into the text, making it suitable for publication. The only observation I still make is the micrograph representing the chromosomal configuration of the 2D group in Figure 3, as apparently the oocyte has not been fully denuded and the chromatin of the cumulus cells can hinder the visualization of the oocyte chromatin, leading to errors in the interpretation of the nuclear configuration of the oocyte. oocyte. Therefore, this image should be replaced by one of better representation.

Reviewer #3: The authors have included new experiments and data, that together with corrections made to the manscript, have improved the work. Questions raised previously were apporpriately addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238812.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-09540R1

One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please authors, carefully consider each of the questions raised by reviewers # 1 and # 2.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 16 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, Associate Professor, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article titled “One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation” has been substantially improved after the author’s modification. The text is more reader friendly, the aim of the manuscript is clearer, and some information, previously missing, has been added in the text. I am satisfied with the answers addressed to my earlier comments.

In this new submission, the author’s included new analysis to assess the bioenergetic/oxidative status of the oocytes aimed to make cleared the effect of the 3D IVM system in the mitochondria activity, intracellular ROS levels, and mitochondria/ROS colocalization.

Theses analyses corroborates to the data presented earlier, however the discussion of these results need to be improved. The lines 484-486 of the discussion session need reference. And the effect of higher mitochondria activity and ROS levels in the oocyte from 3D-IVM system need to be discussed.

We thank the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscript. The discussion on results on the effects of 3D IVM on mitochondria activity and ROS levels has been improved, as requested. References for lines 484-486 have been provided. Possible explanations of higher mitochondria activity and ROS levels found in matured oocytes from the 3D-IVM system have been provided.

Specific comments:

Line 37: Change “that” by “than”.

The word has been corrected.

Line 251-252: The definition of spontaneous parthenogenetic activation should be reviewed. Moreover, this classification of activated oocytes was not presented in the results.

Oocyte spontaneous parthenogenetic activation is a post-Metaphase II condition in which chromatin de-condensation and pronuclear formation take place in the absence of sperm penetration and fertilization. This event is related to the decline in the activity of the two major kinases that regulate meiotic cycle (MPF and MAPK; Ariu et al., 2014). In physiological conditions, MPF and MAPK decline occur in association with fertilization in order to allow male (sperm) and female (oocyte Metaphase II) chromatin de-condensation to obtain the two pronuclei. In experimental conditions, parthenogenetic activation is used to test oocyte pronuclear formation ability, thus its developmental competence (Schoevers et al., 2016) and it is frequently used in sheep oocytes and other animal models. In most of dated and recent references, parthenogenetically activated oocytes are defined as those oocytes showing one pronucleus (Ledda et al., 1997; Sun et al., 2002; Jiang et al., 2014), but the first polar body is extruded (See Figure 3D in Ariu et al., 2014). For these reasons, we think that our definition in the Methods section section is correct. However, upon reviewer suggestion, we changed the sentence for clarity and provided a supporting references (Ariu et al., 2014)

The classification of activated oocytes was presented in Supplementary file 1 because oocytes with this chromatin configuration were observed only after IVM in 2% alginate microbeads. A possible explanation for increased rates of activated oocytes in 2% vs 1% or vs control bidimensional IVM could be related to the fact that COCs cultured in microbeads with too high alginate concentration, impeding cumulus expansion, may have undergone dysmetabolic conditions, thus their MPF/MAPK levels could have been reduced, with consequent MII chromatin de-condensation and pronucleus formation.

Lines 371-374: the information in these lines is conflicting. First it says there was a significant difference between 3D and 2D groups in relation to oocyte abnormal chromatin configuration. Followed by a sentence that says: no effect of different systems was noticed on the incidence of specific abnormal chromatin configurations. In figure 5, it shows a difference between 3D and 2D groups in relation to oocyte abnormal chromatin configuration. Please, confirm the information in these lines.

Certainly the reviewer intended to refer to table 5. We confirm the information that the 3D system reduced the incidence of oocyte chromosomal abnormalities. The conflicting sentence has been eliminated, as suggested.

Lines 404-405: Remove the sentence “Oocytes matured in 3D IVM showed significantly increased mitochondrial activity and intracellular ROS levels.” This is not information for a legend.

This sentence has been removed, as requested.

Lines 413-414: Remove the sentence “Increased MitoTracker (C1 versus C2) and DCF fluorescent intensity (D1 versus D2) are visible in 3D IVM oocytes.” This is not information for a legend.

This sentence has been removed, as requested.

Line 416: I would consider changing “improves oocyte molecular maturation” by “modulates oocyte gene expression”. The term “molecular maturation” refers to many other processes and transcripts that were not investigated in this study.

This sentence has been modified, as suggested.

Line 427: Please, consider to change the expression “tended to decrease” by “was similar between groups”. The p-values informed are not consistent with a classification as tendency.

This sentence has been modified, as suggested.

Line 511: Remove the words “reduction (although not significant) of”

The suggested worlds have been removed.

Lines 511-514: I do not understand the comparison between the data from the present study with the GDF-9 quantification analysis by Morselli et al. [34].

In our opinion, our results on down-regulation of expression of genes coding for SCMC complex in 3D IVM are in agreement with those on down-regulated expression of GDF-9 observed in canine after 3D IVM (Morselli et al. [34]). Indeed, similarly to SCMC, GDF-9 is involved in oocyte developmental competence and its expression is reported to decrease during in vivo and in vitro oocyte maturation (De Los Reyes et al., Theriogenology 2013).

Reviewer #2: All the questions raised were appropriately answered by the authors and the changes were incorporated into the text, making it suitable for publication. The only observation I still make is the micrograph representing the chromosomal configuration of the 2D group in Figure 3, as apparently the oocyte has not been fully denuded and the chromatin nof the cumulus cells can hinder the visualization of the oocyte chromatin, leading to errors in the interpretation of the nuclear configuration of the oocyte. oocyte. Therefore, this image should be replaced by one of better representation.

We thank the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscript. As requested, in Figure 3, the micrograph representing the chromosomal configuration of an oocyte cultured in the 2D system has been replaced with a better one without cumulus cells in order to improve chromatin visualization.

Reviewer #3: The authors have included new experiments and data, that together with corrections made to the manuscript, have improved the work. Questions raised previously were appropriately addressed.

We thank reviewer 3 for these positive comments.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira

25 Aug 2020

One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

PONE-D-20-09540R2

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, Associate Professor, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors answered to all the remarks and questions appropriately. Changes to the manuscript have been made accordingly. All together have improved the work.

Reviewer #2: The micrograph representing the chromosomal configuration of the oocyte cultured in the 2D system has been replaced by a better one. All questions raised previously were appropriately addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira

1 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-09540R2

One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

Dear Dr. Mastrorocco:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Effects of 3D IVM culture in alginate engineered microbeads on the maturation rate of adult sheep oocytes.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES