Uterine microbiota may be involved in reproductive health and disease. This study aims to describe and compare the vaginal and endometrial microbiome patterns between women who became pregnant and women who did not after in vitro fertilization. We also compared the vaginal and endometrial microbiome patterns between women with and without a history of repeated implantation failures (RIF). This pilot prospective cohort study included 48 women presenting to the fertility clinic for IVF from May 2017 to May 2019. Women who achieved clinical pregnancy presented a greater relative abundance of Lactobacillus spp. in their vaginal samples than those who did not (97.69% versus 94.63%; p = 0.027. The alpha and beta diversity of vaginal and endometrial samples were not statistically different between pregnant and non-pregnant women. The Faith alpha diversity index in vaginal samples was lower in women with RIF than those without RIF (p = 0.027). The alpha diversity of the endometrial microbiome was significantly higher in women without RIF (p = 0.021). There were no significant differences in the vaginal and endometrial microbiomes between pregnant and non-pregnant women. The relative abundance of the genera in women with RIF was different from those without RIF. Statistically significant differences in the endometrial microbiome were found between women with and without RIF.

Recent advances in molecular microbiology have enabled refined studies of the genital tract microbiota. This constitutes the basis of the present updated systematic review and meta-analysis which investigate vaginal dysbiosis (VD) as defined by either microscopy (e.g., Nugent score for bacterial vaginosis) or molecular methods (qPCR and Next Generation Sequencing) to evaluate the impact of VD on the reproductive outcomes in women undergoing IVF-treatment. A total of 17 studies were included, comprising 3543 patients and with a VD prevalence of 18% (95%CI 17–19). Across all methods, VD is a significant risk factor for early pregnancy loss in IVF (Relative risk (RR) = 1.71 95%CI 1.29–2.27). Moreover, a predefined sub-analysis of studies using molecular methods for VD diagnosis showed a significant reduction in the clinical pregnancy rate when compared to normal vaginal microbiota patients (RR = 0.55 95%CI 0.32–0.93). However, regardless of diagnostic methodology, VD did not significantly influence live birth rate (LBR). In conclusion, molecular tools have provided a more detailed insight into the vaginal microbiota, which may be the reason for the increased adverse effect estimates in IVF patients with molecularly defined VD. However, the quality of evidence was very low across all outcomes according to GRADE and thus, more studies are warranted to understand the impact of VD in IVF.

An abnormal endometrial microbiota has been associated with implantation failure; therefore, it may be important to evaluate it in order to improve reproductive outcomes in infertile patients. The main objective of our study was to compare the endometrial microbiome of patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and control patients undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (ART). A prospective cohort study including forty-five patients with their own or donated gametes. The endometrial microbiome was analysed by massive sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene. Different bacterial communities were detected in RIF and control patients. Lactobacillus stands out as the most frequent genus, with 92.27% in RIF patients and 97.96% in control patients, and significant differences were reported between the two groups (p = 0.002). No significant differences were found regarding alpha diversity index. In beta diversity analysis, a significant trend was observed in the separation of the bacterial community between established groups (p < 0.07). Relative abundance analysis identified genera Prevotella (p < 0.001), Streptococcus (p < 0.001), Bifidobacterium (p = 0.002), Lactobacillus (p = 0.002) and Dialister (p = 0.003). Our results demonstrated the existence of an endometrial microbiota characteristic of RIF patients and showed that there might be a relationship between population of the endometrial microbiome and embryo implantation failure, providing us the possibility to improve clinical results in this patients.

Chromosomal mosaicism is a relatively common finding in human IVF embryos. However, the association between mosaicism in trophoectoderm and inner mass cells, the mechanisms involved, and its effects on implantation are far from established. We retrospectively reanalyzed array-CGH results from 1,362 trophoectoderm biopsies. We detected chromosomal mosaicism in 183 blastocysts (13.4%). A decrease in the clinical pregnancy rate when we compared the cycles where only mosaic embryos were transferred (26.9%) vs. euploid embryos were transferred (40.2%) was not statistically different (p = 0.127). Also a tendency to increase the biochemical miscarriage was reported (21.2% mosaic group vs. 12.3% euploid group; p=0.102). Our data suggests that the transfer of some mosaic embryos achieve full term pregnancies. Additional studies are needed to clarify how embryo mosaicism affects the outcomes of the IVF cycles.

Does the diagnosis of mosaicism affect ploidy rates across different providers offering preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)? Our analysis of 36 395 blastocyst biopsies across eight genetic testing laboratories revealed that euploidy rates were significantly higher in providers reporting low rates of mosaicism. Diagnoses consistent with chromosomal mosaicism have emerged as a third category of possible embryo ploidy outcomes following PGT-A. However, in the era of mosaicism, embryo selection has become increasingly complex. Biological, technical, analytical, and clinical complexities in interpreting such results have led to substantial variability in mosaicism rates across PGT-A providers and clinics. Critically, it remains unknown whether these differences impact the number of euploid embryos available for transfer. Ultimately, this may significantly affect clinical outcomes, with important implications for PGT-A patients. In this international, multicenter cohort study, we reviewed 36 395 consecutive PGT-A results, obtained from 10 035 patients across 11 867 treatment cycles, conducted between October 2015 and October 2021. A total of 17 IVF centers, across eight PGT-A providers, five countries and three continents participated in the study. All blastocysts were tested using trophectoderm biopsy and next-generation sequencing. Both autologous and donation cycles were assessed. Cycles using preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements were excluded from the analysis. The PGT-A providers were randomly categorized (A to H). Providers B, C, D, E, F, G, and H all reported mosaicism, whereas Provider A reported embryos as either euploid or aneuploid. Ploidy rates were analyzed using multilevel mixed linear regression. Analyses were adjusted for maternal age, paternal age, oocyte source, number of embryos biopsied, day of biopsy, and PGT-A provider, as appropriate. We compared associations between genetic testing providers and PGT-A outcomes, including the number of chromosomally normal (euploid) embryos determined to be suitable for transfer. The mean maternal age (±SD) across all providers was 36.2 (±5.2). Our findings reveal a strong association between PGT-A provider and the diagnosis of euploidy and mosaicism. Amongst the seven providers that reported mosaicism, the rates varied from 3.1% to 25.0%. After adjusting for confounders, we observed a significant difference in the likelihood of diagnosing mosaicism across providers (P < 0.001), ranging from 6.5% (95% CI: 5.2–7.4%) for Provider B to 35.6% (95% CI: 32.6–38.7%) for Provider E. Notably, adjusted euploidy rates were highest for providers that reported the lowest rates of mosaicism (Provider B: euploidy, 55.7% (95% CI: 54.1–57.4%), mosaicism, 6.5% (95% CI: 5.2–7.4%); Provider H: euploidy, 44.5% (95% CI: 43.6–45.4%), mosaicism, 9.9% (95% CI: 9.2–10.6%)); and Provider D: euploidy, 43.8% (95% CI: 39.2–48.4%), mosaicism, 11.0% (95% CI: 7.5–14.5%)). Moreover, the overall chance of having at least one euploid blastocyst available for transfer was significantly higher when mosaicism was not reported, when we compared Provider A to all other providers (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.13–1.50). Differences in diagnosing and interpreting mosaic results across PGT-A laboratories raise further concerns regarding the accuracy and relevance of mosaicism predictions. While we confirmed equivalent clinical outcomes following the transfer of mosaic and euploid blastocysts, we found that a significant proportion of mosaic embryos are not used for IVF treatment. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, associations can be ascertained, however, causality cannot be established. Certain parameters such as blastocyst grade were not available in the dataset. Furthermore, certain platform-related and clinic-specific factors may not be readily quantifiable or explicitly captured in our dataset. As such, a full elucidation of all potential confounders accounting for variability may not be possible. Our findings highlight the strong need for standardization and quality assurance in the industry. The decision not to transfer mosaic embryos may ultimately reduce the chance of success of a PGT-A cycle by limiting the pool of available embryos. Until we can be certain that mosaic diagnoses accurately reflect biological variability, reporting mosaicism warrants utmost caution. A prudent approach is imperative, as it may determine the difference between success or failure for some patients. This work was supported by the Torres Quevedo Grant, awarded to M.P. (PTQ2019-010494) by the Spanish State Research Agency, Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain. M.P., L.B., A.R.L., A.L.R.d.C.L., N.P.P., M.P., D.S., F.A., A.P., B.M., L.D., F.V.M., D.S., M.R., E.P.d.l.B., A.R., and R.V. have no competing interests to declare. B.L., R.M., and J.A.O. are full time employees of IB Biotech, the genetics company of the Instituto Bernabeu group, which performs preimplantation genetic testing. M.G. is a full time employee of Novagen, the genetics company of Cegyr, which performs preimplantation genetic testing. N/A.