Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 1509–1516 | Cite as

Double-strand DNA breaks and repair response in human immature oocytes and their relevance to meiotic resumption

  • Giovanni Coticchio
  • Mariabeatrice Dal Canto
  • Maria Cristina Guglielmo
  • David F. Albertini
  • Mario Mignini Renzini
  • Maria Merola
  • Monia Lain
  • Manuela Sottocornola
  • Elena De Ponti
  • Rubens Fadini
Gamete Biology



Only 50–60 % of immature human oocytes attain the mature stage in vitro. Such a deficiency may be a reflection of inadequate conditions of in vitro maturation (IVM) or a manifestation of intrinsic oocyte defects. In the present study, we explored the possibility that the DNA of immature oocytes may be damaged and that such a condition, or inability to trigger a repair action, is associated to germinal vesicle (GV) arrest.


Immature oocytes (GV-stage oocytes) were obtained from women undergoing stimulated (Stim-C) or IVM (IVM-C) cycles. GV oocytes obtained from stimulated cycles were fixed for successive analysis either after recovery (T0) or following 30 h (T30) of culture if still arrested at the GV stage. Oocytes retrieved in IVM cycles were used only if they were found arrested at the GV stage after 30 h (T30) of culture. All oocytes were fixed and stained to detect chromatin and actin. They were also assessed for positivity to γH2AX and Rad51, markers revealing the presence of double-strand DNA breaks and the activation of a DNA repair response, respectively. Labelled oocytes were analysed using a Leica TCS SP2 laser scanning confocal microscope.


In Stim-C oocytes, γH2AX positivity was 47.5 and 81.5 % in the T0 and T30 groups, respectively (P = 0.003), while γH2AX-positive oocytes were 58.3 % in the IVM-C T30 group (Stim-C T0 vs. IVM-C T30, P = 0.178; Stim-C T30 vs. IVM-C T30, P = 0.035). Positivity for nuclear staining to Rad51 occurred in 42.1 and 74.1 % of Stim-C in the T0 and T30 subgroups, respectively (T = 0.006), while 66.7 % of IVM-C T30 oocytes resulted positive for a DNA repair response (Stim-C T0 vs. IVM-C T30, P = 0.010; Stim-C T30 vs. IVM-C T30, P = 0.345).


The present data document the existence of double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) in human immature oocytes. Also, they are consistent with the hypothesis that insults to DNA integrity may be an important factor affecting meiotic resumption.


Oocytes DNA damage DNA repair In vitro maturation Germinal vesicle 


  1. 1.
    Albuz FK, Sasseville M, Lane M, Armstrong DT, Thompson JG, Gilchrist RB. Simulated physiological oocyte maturation (SPOM): a novel in vitro maturation system that substantially improves embryo yield and pregnancy outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(12):2999–3011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fadini R, Dal Canto MB, Mignini Renzini M, Brambillasca F, Comi R, Fumagalli D, et al. Effect of different gonadotrophin priming on IVM of oocytes from women with normal ovaries: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(3):343–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dal Canto M, Brambillasca F, Mignini Renzini M, Coticchio G, Merola M, Lain M, et al. Cumulus cell-oocyte complexes retrieved from antral follicles in IVM cycles: relationship between COCs morphology, gonadotropin priming and clinical outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(6):513–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilchrist RB. Recent insights into oocyte-follicle cell interactions provide opportunities for the development of new approaches to in vitro maturation. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2011;23(1):23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones KT. Turning it on and off: M-phase promoting factor during meiotic maturation and fertilization. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(1):1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combelles CMH, Cekleniak NA, Racowsky C, Albertini DF. Assessment of nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation in in-vitro matured human oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(4):1006–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson SP, Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature. Nature Publishing Group; 2009 Oct 12;461(7267):1071–8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgoyne PS, Mahadevaiah SK, Turner JMA. The consequences of asynapsis for mammalian meiosis. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(3):207–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDougall A, Elliott DJ, Hunter N. Pairing, connecting, exchanging, pausing and pulling chromosomes. 2005;120–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Govindaraj V, Basavaraju RK, Rao AJ. Changes in the expression of DNA double strand break repair genes in primordial follicles from immature and aged rats. Reprod Biomed Online. Reproductive Healthcare Ltd; 2015;30(3):303–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH, Ivanova VS, Bonner WM. DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem. 1998;273(10):5858–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Celeste A, Petersen S, Romanienko PJ, Fernandez-Capetillo O, Chen HT, Sedelnikova OA, et al. Genomic instability in mice lacking histone H2AX. Science. 2002;296(5569):922–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgoyne PS, Mahadevaiah SK, Turner JMA. The management of DNA double-strand breaks in mitotic G2, and in mammalian meiosis viewed from a mitotic G2 perspective. Bioessays. 2007;29(10):974–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cosnefroy O, Tocco A, Lesbats P, Thierry S, Calmels C, Wiktorowicz T, et al. Stimulation of the human RAD51 nucleofilament restricts HIV-1 integration in vitro and in infected cells. J Virol. 2011;86(1):513–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fadini R, Brambillasca F, Renzini MM, Merola M, Comi R, De Ponti E, et al. Human oocyte cryopreservation: comparison between slow and ultrarapid methods. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(2):171–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coticchio G, Guglielmo M-C, Dal Canto M, Fadini R, Mignini Renzini M, De Ponti E, et al. Mechanistic foundations of the metaphase II spindle of human oocytes matured in vivo and in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(12):3271–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fadini R, Dal Canto MB, Renzini MM, Brambillasca F, Comi R, Fumagalli D, et al. Predictive factors in in-vitro maturation in unstimulated women with normal ovaries. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(2):251–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coticchio G, Guglielmo M-C, Albertini DF, Dal Canto M, Mignini Renzini M, De Ponti E, et al. Contributions of the actin cytoskeleton to the emergence of polarity during maturation in human oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(3):200–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smitz JEJ, Thompson JG, Gilchrist RB. The promise of in vitro maturation in assisted reproduction and fertility preservation. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29(1):24–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richani D, Ritter LJ, Thompson JG, Gilchrist RB. Mode of oocyte maturation affects EGF-like peptide function and oocyte competence. Mol Hum Reprod. 2013;19(8):500–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Titus S, Li F, Stobezki R, Akula K, Unsal E, Jeong K, et al. Impairment of BRCA1-related DNA double-strand break repair leads to ovarian aging in mice and humans. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(172):172ra21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartek J, Lukas J. DNA damage checkpoints: from initiation to recovery or adaptation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2007;19(2):238–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith J, Tho LM, Xu N, Gillespie DA. The ATM-Chk2 and ATR-Chk1 pathways in DNA damage signaling and cancer. Adv Cancer Res. 2010;108:73–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reinhardt HC, Yaffe MB. Kinases that control the cell cycle in response to DNA damage: Chk1, Chk2, and MK2. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2009;21(2):245–55.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waddell N, Pajic M, Patch A-M, Chang DK, Kassahn KS, Bailey P, et al. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2015;518(7540):495–501.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Combelles CMH, Gupta S, Agarwal A. Could oxidative stress influence the in-vitro maturation of oocytes? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(6):864–80.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marangos P, Carroll J. Oocytes progress beyond prophase in the presence of DNA damage. Current Biology. Elsevier Ltd; 2012;22(11):989–94.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eppig JJ, O’Brien MJ, Pendola FL, Watanabe S. Factors affecting the developmental competence of mouse oocytes grown in vitro: follicle-stimulating hormone and insulin. Biol Reprod. 1998;59(6):1445–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ma J-Y, Ou-Yang Y-C, Wang Z-W, Wang Z-B, Jiang Z-Z, Luo S-M, et al. The effects of DNA double-strand breaks on mouse oocyte meiotic maturation. Cell Cycle. 2013;12(8):1233–41.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Coticchio
    • 1
  • Mariabeatrice Dal Canto
    • 1
  • Maria Cristina Guglielmo
    • 1
  • David F. Albertini
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mario Mignini Renzini
    • 1
  • Maria Merola
    • 1
  • Monia Lain
    • 1
  • Manuela Sottocornola
    • 1
  • Elena De Ponti
    • 4
  • Rubens Fadini
    • 1
  1. 1.Biogenesi Reproductive Medicine CentreIstituti Clinici ZucchiMonzaItaly
  2. 2.Center for Human ReproductionNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular and Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of KansasKansas CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medical PhysicsSan Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly

Personalised recommendations