-
A total of 141 couples were enrolled in this study, with 93 undergoing IVF cycles and 48 undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. The demographic characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1. The baseline hormone levels and semen quality were within normal ranges for these parameters. Following assisted reproductive treatment, the average number of 2PN was 7.8 ± 5.2, the average number of good-quality embryos was 5.6 ± 4.3, and the average fertilization rate was 61.2% ± 22.0%. Ultimately, 74 women (59%) tested positive for hCG, and 57 (47%) presented with clinical pregnancy.
Table 1. The basic demographic and biological characteristics of the couples
Characteristics Females Males Age (years), mean ± SD 32.0 ± 3.1 33.3 ± 4.0 < 35, n (%) 15 (11.0) 98 (69.5) ≥ 35, n (%) 126 (89.0) 43 (30.5) BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD 23.2 ± 3.7 26.1 ± 5.0 ≤ 25, n (%) 104 (73.8) 62 (46.6) > 25, n (%) 37 (26.2) 71 (53.4) Smoking status, n (%) Smoker 0 52 (37.4) Non-smoker 139 (100.0) 87 (63.6) Infertility type, n (%) Primary infertility 32 (22.7) − Secondary infertility 109 (77.3) − AMH (ng/m), mean ± SD 4.3 ± 3.1 − Basal hormone level, mean ± SD FSH (mIU/mL) 6.3 ± 2.1 − PRL (ng/mL) 14.9 ± 11.1 − LH (mIU/mL) 3.4 ± 2.1 − E2 (pmol/L) 111.9 ± 116.8 − T (nmol/L) 0.8 ± 0.3 − P (ng/mL) 2.8 ± 19.9 − Sperm concentration (× 106/mL), mean ± SD − 47.5 ± 3.5 Progressive motility (%), mean ± SD − 34.0 ± 18.9 Sperm viability (%), mean ± SD − 28.5 ± 17.4 Note. Data was described as n (%) or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; IVF, in vitro fertilization; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; 2PN, two pronuclei. -
The concentrations of 14 REEs were examined in the serum and follicular fluid of females and in the semen of males. The REEs with detection rates exceeding 80% included La, Ce, Pr, Nd, and Sm. All were classified as light rare earth elements (LREEs) and further analyzed[27].
La, Ce, Pr, and Nd were detected in all three samples; however, the concentrations of these elements varied in different samples (Table 2). The concentration of REEs in female serum was significantly higher than that in the follicular fluid (P < 0.001), suggesting a potential barrier for REEs when entering the follicular fluid from the blood. The concentration in male semen was higher than that in female follicular fluid (P < 0.001) and comparable to that in female serum (P = 0.034). Sm was only detected in the female serum (Table 3). The Spearman correlation coefficients for all elements are shown in Supplementary Figure S1 (available in www.besjournal.com). The five LREEs (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, and Sm) were positively correlated with each other in serum, and a similar correlation was observed among the four elements (La, Ce, Pr, and Nd) in follicular fluid and semen. La and Ce were positively correlated in all three sample types, with correlations ranging from 0.78 to 0.93. However, there was no correlation between REEs in the serum and follicular fluid of the same female.
Table 2. The results of IVF and ICSI
Couple/cycle-specific characteristics Couples Fertilization mode, n (%) IVF 93 (66.0) ICSI 48 (34.0) No. of oocytes retrieved, mean ± SD 13.0 ± 7.7 No. of 2PN, mean ± SD 7.8 ± 5.2 No. of good-quality embryos, mean ± SD 5.6 ± 4.3 Fertilization rate (%), mean ± SD 61.2 ± 22.0 IVF outcomes, n (%) HCG test Positive 74 (59.2) Negative 51 (40.8) Clinical pregnancy Yes 57 (47.2) No 64 (52.8) Note. Data was described as n (%) or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; IIVF, in vitro fertilization; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; 2PN, two pronuclei. Table 3. REE concentrations of the IVF-embryo transfer couples
Elements Sample Median (IQR) Mean ± SD LOD Detection ratio (%) Ce (ng/mL) Serum 0.097 (0.061, 0.167) 0.149 ± 0.163 0.0004 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.034 (0.020, 0.05) 0.046 ± 0.044 0.0004 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.246 (0.168, 0.374) 0.289 ± 0.206 0.0004 100.0 La (ng/mL) Serum 0.080 (0.048, 0.124) 0.107 ± 0.097 0.0006 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.016 (0.009, 0.027) 0.022 ± 0.021 0.0006 99.3 Seminal plasma 0.089 (0.054, 0.128) 0.101 ± 0.084 0.0006 97.2 Nd (ng/mL) Serum 0.144 (0.097, 0.199) 0.172 ± 0.119 0.0003 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.069 (0.054, 0.101) 0.076 ± 0.034 0.0003 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.118 (0.080, 0.171) 0.130 ± 0.076 0.0003 100.0 Pr (ng/mL) Serum 0.026 (0.017, 0.040) 0.033 ± 0.026 0.0001 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.009 (0.007, 0.012) 0.010 ± 0.006 0.0001 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.023 (0.013, 0.036) 0.027 ± 0.020 0.0001 100.0 Sm (ng/mL) Serum 0.050 (0.031, 0.06) 0.053 ± 0.030 0.0004 99.3 Note. Data was described as Median (IQR), n (%), or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; LOD, limit of detection. REE, rare earth elements; IVF, in vitro fertilization. -
For females, REE levels in the serum and follicular fluid exhibited no significant correlation with fertilization rate, number of two pronuclei (2PN), number of good-quality embryos, or clinical pregnancy outcomes. Similarly, REE levels in male semen exhibited no significant correlation with the number of 2PN embryos, the number of good-quality embryos, or clinical pregnancy outcomes (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S1, available in www.besjournal.com). However, an elevated level of La in male semen (median 0.089 ng/mL, OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.98, P = 0.03) was associated with a lower fertilization rate (Figure 1). Further stratified analysis of ICSI and IVF reveals that the association of La with fertilization rate can be corrected after the artificial selection of sperm through ICSI (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.88–1.55, P = 0.27).
Figure 1. Relative risk of LREE concentrations associated with reproductive characteristics in IVF-ET couples. Results of the associations of REE with the number of 2PN, the number of good-quality embryos, fertilization rate, and clinical pregnancy (adjusted by age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status). Blue represents a statistically significant negative association; red represents a statistically significant positive association. LREE, light rare earth elements; IVF-ET, in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer; 2PN, two pronuclei.
-
When the other three elements were set at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile concentrations of seminal plasma, Pr was positively associated, and Nd was negatively associated with clinical pregnancy (Figure 2A). The dose-response curves for REEs tended to be linear based on the univariate exposure-response curves of individual elements with pregnancy outcomes (Figure 2B). In the bivariate exposure-response function, interactions were found between Nd and La, Ce, and Pr (Figure 2C). Mixed REE exposure to REEs shows not associated with clinical pregnancy outcomes (Figure 2D). The PIP is highest for seminal plasma La at 0.53 (Supplementary Table S2, available in www.besjournal.com). WQS model analysis results indicate no association between mixed exposure and clinical pregnancy (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91–1.15; P = 0.62). La contributed the most to the mixed index with a weight of 64% (Figure 2E).
Figure 2. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR Models for clinical pregnancy in semen. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th and 25th percentiles, while the other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. (B) Univariate exposure-response analysis for the associations between each REE and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response functions and 95% confidence intervals are calculated for the associations between each REE and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure-response functions for a type of REE were fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, while the remaining REEs were fixed at the median. (D) Association between mixed REE exposure and clinical pregnancies. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all REEs are at their specific quantiles to those at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models were adjusted for age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status. LREE, light rare earth elements.
When the remaining elements were set at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile concentrations, Sm and Ce in serum, as well as Pr in follicular fluid, were positively correlated with clinical pregnancy (Supplementary Figure S2A and Supplementary Figure S3A, available in www.besjournal.com); however, according to the individual element's univariate exposure-response curves with pregnancy, only Pr in follicular fluid showed a nonlinear relationship (Supplementary Figure S3B). In the bivariate exposure-response function of serum REEs, interactions were found between Ce and Sm (Supplementary Figure S2C). Regarding the follicular fluid, interactions were found between Nd and La, Ce, and Pr (Supplementary Figure S3C). Ultimately, in both the serum and follicular fluid, BKMR mixed exposure to REEs showed a positive association with clinical pregnancy outcomes (Supplementary Figure S2D, Supplementary Figure S3D). The results of the WQS model analysis also suggest a positive association between mixed exposure and clinical pregnancy (Supplementary Figure S2E, Supplementary Figure S3E).
Figure S2. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR models for clinical pregnancy in serum. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th vs 25th percentile and other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, respectively. (B) Univariate exposure-response for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response function and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure–response functions for a kind of REE fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile and the rest of REEs are fixed at the median. (D) Associations between the mixed exposure to REEs and clinical pregnancy. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all the REEs are at their specific quantile compared to those that are all at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models adjusted age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status.
Figure S3. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR models for clinical pregnancy in follicular fluid. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th vs 25th percentile and other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, respectively. (B) Univariate exposure-response for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response function and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure–response functions for a kind of REE fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile and the rest of REEs are fixed at the median. (D) Associations between the mixed exposure to REEs and clinical pregnancy. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all the REEs are at their specific quantile compared to those that are all at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models adjusted age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking statu.
-
Our study revealed a possible association between high La exposure in semen and a decline in fertilization rates. Our study is the first to report REEs concentrations in follicular fluid; La, Ce, Pr, and Nd were found at significantly lower concentrations than in female serum, suggesting that these four REEs may not accumulate in the reproductive system. However, at the currently detected levels ofREEs exposure, mixed exposure did not exhibit reproductive toxicity.
-
Table S1. Relative risk of the LREE concentrations associated with the clinical pregnancy of IVF-embryo transfer
Elements Sample Model-1a Model-2b OR 95% CI P OR 95% CI P Ce serum 1.11 0.80 1.56 0.53 1.13 0.90 1.43 0.30 follicular fluid 1.02 0.73 1.42 0.92 0.95 0.78 1.14 0.57 seminal plasma 0.93 0.66 1.30 0.66 1.01 0.87 1.17 0.87 La serum 0.92 0.66 1.29 0.63 0.86 0.65 1.14 0.28 follicular fluid 0.96 0.68 1.34 0.81 0.99 0.80 1.22 0.90 seminal plasma 1.09 0.78 1.52 0.63 1.13 0.86 1.47 0.39 Nd serum 0.95 0.68 1.33 0.77 1.02 0.89 1.17 0.79 follicular fluid 0.95 0.68 1.33 0.77 0.93 0.75 1.15 0.52 seminal plasma 1.01 0.72 1.42 0.94 1.09 0.86 1.37 0.48 Pr serum 1.11 0.79 1.56 0.56 1.12 0.89 1.41 0.34 follicular fluid 1.27 0.94 1.72 0.12 1.31 1.00 1.72 0.05 seminal plasma 1.13 0.85 1.52 0.40 1.23 0.92 1.66 0.17 Sm serum 1.17 0.87 1.57 0.29 1.23 0.94 1.61 0.13 Note. aModel-1 uses log-binomial regression without adjusting confounders. bModel-2 uses log-binomial regression with adjusting age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type and smoking status. Table S2. Posterior inclusion probabilities (PIPs) for semen concentrations of REEs and clinical pregnancy using BKMR
Elements PIPs La 0.53 Ce 0.37 Pr 0.49 Nd 0.40 Table S3. Concentrations of rare earth elements in previous studies
References Region Sample type (ng/mL) Population Subgroup La Ce Pr Nd Sm This study Beijing, China Serum Women − 0.080
(0.048, 0.124)0.097
(0.061, 0.167)0.026
(0.017, 0.040)0.144
(0.097, 0.199)0.050
(0.031, 0.067)Follicular fluid Women − 0.016
(0.009, 0.027)0.034
(0.020, 0.055)0.009
(0.007, 0.012)0.069
(0.054, 0.101)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.0004)seminal plasma Man − 0.089
(0.054, 0.128)0.246
(0.168, 0.374)0.023
(0.013, 0.036)0.118
(0.080, 0.171)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.0004)[1] Shandong/Beijing,
ChinaSerum Women − 0.035
(0.027, 0.047)0.058
(0.044, 0.094)0.010
(0.008, 0.016)0.051
(0.038, 0.090)− [2] Beijing, China Serum Women − 0.076
(0.054, 0.099)0.137
(0.091, 0.179)0.029
(0.023, 0.035)0.178
(0.134, 0.226)0.123
(0.092, 0.164)[3] Beijing, China Plasma Women First trimester 0.073
(0.059, 0.096)0.121
(0.088, 0.162)0.031
(0.023, 0.039)0.162
(0.114, 0.225)0.047
(0.022, 0.077)Women Third trimester 0.071
(0.054, 0.088)0.103
(0.072, 0.138)0.030
(0.023, 0.039)0.176
(0.116, 0.238)0.053
(0.025, 0.093)[4] Shanxi, China Serum Women Cases 0.072
(0.052, 0.107)0.116
(0.080, 0.233)0.030
(0.023, 0.043)0.212
(0.156, 0.265)0.132
(0.098, 0.173)Controls 0.059
(0.045, 0.083)0.090
(0.063, 0.130)0.028
(0.022, 0.037)0.195
(0.150, 0.252)0.127
(0.096, 0.168)[5] Shanxi, China Serum Women First trimester 0.047
(0.036, 0.061)0.066
(0.049, 0.090)0.020
(0.016, 0.024)0.125
(0.103, 0.155)0.094
(0.076, 0.116)Women Second trimester 0.049
(0.038, 0.066)0.069
(0.056, 0.093)0.021
(0.017, 0.025)0.140
(0.109, 0.173)0.094
(0.078, 0.115)[6] Serbia Plasma Women Beginning of the delivery 0.67 ± 0.24a 0.17 ± 0.12 a 0.25 ± 0.09 a 0.78 ± 0.32 a 0.33 ± 0.16 a Umbilical cord plasm − − 0.091 ± 0.077 a 0.16 ± 0.08 a 0.059 ± 0.028 a 0.16 ± 0.09 a 0.12 ± 0.06 a [7] Hubei, China Urine (ug/g creatinine) Women Before delivery 0.066
(0.027, 0.149)0.065
(0.027, 0.149)0.015
(0.006, 0.036)0.043
(0.021, 0.094)− [8] Hubei, China Urine (ug/g creatinine) Women Before delivery − 0.065
(0.026, 0.151)− − − [9] Shanxi, China Umbilical cord tissue (ng/g) Women Cases 0.70
(0.46, 1.11)6.17
(2.56, 18.71)0.18
(0.10, 0.34)0.56
(0.38, 0.94)0.21
(0.11, 0.70)Controls 0.49
(0.23, 0.93)6.64
(2.28, 17.5)0.14
(0.08, 0.24)0.45
(0.20, 0.82)0.17
(0.04, 0.81)[10] Canary Islands, Spain umbilical cord blood − − 0.01
(0.01, 0.03)0.03
(0.02, 0.06)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.01)0.01
(< MDL, 0.01)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.01)[11]a Bangladesh umbilical cord blood − − 0.056 5.536 0.013 0.039 0.015 [12] Caucasus placental tissues (ng/g) − − 0.41
(0.25, 0.61)0.42
(0.27, 0.80)0.043
(0.029, 0.061)0.135
(0.087, 0.196)0.010
(0.006, 0.020)[12] Henan,
ChinaPlasma Woman and man Exposure
(job)0.138 ± 0.161 0.320 ± 0.350 0.031 ± 0.047 0.056 ± 0.087 0.0167 ± 0.029 Control 0.092 ± 0.115 0.240 ± 0.357 0.016 ± 0.019 0.035 ± 0.061 0.0087 ± 0.013 [13] Poland Semen
(ng/g)Man Control 21.5b
(2.27–269)44.0 b
(4.52–140)− − − Abnormal semen 17.5 b
(2.58–79.0)37.9 b
(4.63–167)− − − [14] Baotou,
ChinaWhole blood Non-pregnant women − 0.854
(0.702, 1.061)1.724
(1.446, 2.498)0.132
(0.110, 0.165)0.839
(0.587, 0.815)− Note. Most of the data are presented as “median (IQR)”. a: Data are presented as “mean ± s”. b: Data are presented as “median (minimum–maximum)”. Table S4. The LOD and detection rate of the rest rare earth elements
Elements Sample Median (IQR) LOD Detection ratio Eu Serum 0.001 (0.001, 0.002) 0.0010 52.5% Follicular fluid 0.002 (0.000, 0.004) 0.0010 63.8% Seminal plasma 0.004 (0.000, 0.007) 0.0010 68.8% Gd Serum 0.004 (0.003, 0.007) 0.0020 75.9% Follicular fluid 0.013 (0.007, 0.020) 0.0020 61.7% Seminal plasma 0.024 (0.014, 0.039) 0.0020 66.0% Tb Serum 0.001 (0.000, 0.001) 0.0004 45.4% Follicular fluid 0.001 (0.000, 0.002) 0.0004 39.7% Seminal plasma 0.002 (0.000, 0.005) 0.0004 73.0% Dy Serum 0.006 (0.001, 0.009) 0.0010 64.5% Follicular fluid 0.008 (0.002, 0.014) 0.0010 53.2% Seminal plasma 0.012 (0.004, 0.025) 0.0010 74.5% Ho Serum 0.002 (0.001, 0.002) 0.0020 55.3% Follicular fluid 0.002 (0.002, 0.005) 0.0020 65.2% Seminal plasma 0.003 (0.002, 0.004) 0.0020 68.8% Er Serum 0.003 (0.001, 0.005) 0.0012 65.2% Follicular fluid 0.004 (0.001, 0.007) 0.0012 70.9% Seminal plasma 0.005 (0.000, 0.011) 0.0012 73.8% Tm Serum 0.000 (0.000, 0.000) 0.0040 33.3% Follicular fluid −0.002 (−0.003, −0.001) 0.0040 0.0% Seminal plasma −0.002 (−0.003, −0.001) 0.0040 2.1% Yb Serum 0.002 (0.001, 0.003) 0.0010 53.9% Follicular fluid 0.001 (−0.001, 0.005) 0.0010 50.4% Seminal plasma 0.001 (−0.001, 0.005) 0.0010 51.1% Lu Serum 0.000 (−0.002, 0.001) 0.0001 30.5% Follicular fluid −0.004 (−0.004, −0.003) 0.0001 1.4% Seminal plasma −0.004 (−0.005, −0.003) 0.0001 5.7%
doi: 10.3967/bes2024.123
Association between Exposure of Rare Earth Elements and Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer in Beijing
-
Abstract:
Objective The study aimed to investigate the impact of rare earth elements (REEs) exposure on pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) by analyzing samples from spouses. Methods A total of 141 couples were included. Blood and follicular fluid from the wives and semen plasma from the husbands, were analyzed for REEs using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Spearman’s correlation coefficients and the Mann–Whitney U test were used to assess correlations and compare REE concentrations among three types of samples, respectively. Logistic models were utilized to estimate the individual REE effect on IVF-ET outcomes, while BKMR and WQS models explored the mixture of REE interaction effects on IVF-ET outcomes. Results Higher La concentration in semen (median 0.089 ng/mL, P = 0.03) was associated with a lower fertilization rate. However, this effect was not observed after artificial selection intervention through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (P = 0.27). In semen, the REEs mixture did not exhibit any significant association with clinical pregnancy. Conclusion Our study revealed a potential association between high La exposure in semen and a decline in fertilization rate, but not clinical pregnancy rate. This is the first to report REEs concentrations in follicular fluid with La, Ce, Pr, and Nd found at significantly lower concentrations than in serum, suggesting that these four REEs may not accumulate in the female reproductive system. However, at the current exposure levels, mixed REEs exposure did not exhibit reproductive toxicity. -
Key words:
- Rare earth elements /
- In vitro fertilization /
- Pregnancy outcomes /
- Mixture exposure analysis
&These authors contributed equally to this work.
注释:1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: -
Figure 1. Relative risk of LREE concentrations associated with reproductive characteristics in IVF-ET couples. Results of the associations of REE with the number of 2PN, the number of good-quality embryos, fertilization rate, and clinical pregnancy (adjusted by age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status). Blue represents a statistically significant negative association; red represents a statistically significant positive association. LREE, light rare earth elements; IVF-ET, in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer; 2PN, two pronuclei.
Figure 2. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR Models for clinical pregnancy in semen. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th and 25th percentiles, while the other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. (B) Univariate exposure-response analysis for the associations between each REE and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response functions and 95% confidence intervals are calculated for the associations between each REE and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure-response functions for a type of REE were fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, while the remaining REEs were fixed at the median. (D) Association between mixed REE exposure and clinical pregnancies. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all REEs are at their specific quantiles to those at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models were adjusted for age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status. LREE, light rare earth elements.
S2. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR models for clinical pregnancy in serum. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th vs 25th percentile and other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, respectively. (B) Univariate exposure-response for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response function and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure–response functions for a kind of REE fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile and the rest of REEs are fixed at the median. (D) Associations between the mixed exposure to REEs and clinical pregnancy. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all the REEs are at their specific quantile compared to those that are all at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models adjusted age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking status.
S3. Mixture exposure analysis of WQS model regression models and BKMR models for clinical pregnancy in follicular fluid. (A) Single REEs association. The plot compares the changes in clinical pregnancy [h(expo)] when the LREE is at its 75th vs 25th percentile and other elements are fixed at their 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile, respectively. (B) Univariate exposure-response for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy. Univariate exposure-response function and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between each REEs and clinical pregnancy, with other elements fixed at their median concentrations. (C) Bivariate exposure–response functions for a kind of REE fixed at either the 25th, 50th, or 75th percentile and the rest of REEs are fixed at the median. (D) Associations between the mixed exposure to REEs and clinical pregnancy. The plot compares the estimated risk change [h(expo)] when all the REEs are at their specific quantile compared to those that are all at their 50th percentile. (E) The weights of REEs in clinical pregnancy based on WQS regression analysis. Models adjusted age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type, and smoking statu.
Table 1. The basic demographic and biological characteristics of the couples
Characteristics Females Males Age (years), mean ± SD 32.0 ± 3.1 33.3 ± 4.0 < 35, n (%) 15 (11.0) 98 (69.5) ≥ 35, n (%) 126 (89.0) 43 (30.5) BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD 23.2 ± 3.7 26.1 ± 5.0 ≤ 25, n (%) 104 (73.8) 62 (46.6) > 25, n (%) 37 (26.2) 71 (53.4) Smoking status, n (%) Smoker 0 52 (37.4) Non-smoker 139 (100.0) 87 (63.6) Infertility type, n (%) Primary infertility 32 (22.7) − Secondary infertility 109 (77.3) − AMH (ng/m), mean ± SD 4.3 ± 3.1 − Basal hormone level, mean ± SD FSH (mIU/mL) 6.3 ± 2.1 − PRL (ng/mL) 14.9 ± 11.1 − LH (mIU/mL) 3.4 ± 2.1 − E2 (pmol/L) 111.9 ± 116.8 − T (nmol/L) 0.8 ± 0.3 − P (ng/mL) 2.8 ± 19.9 − Sperm concentration (× 106/mL), mean ± SD − 47.5 ± 3.5 Progressive motility (%), mean ± SD − 34.0 ± 18.9 Sperm viability (%), mean ± SD − 28.5 ± 17.4 Note. Data was described as n (%) or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; IVF, in vitro fertilization; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; 2PN, two pronuclei. Table 2. The results of IVF and ICSI
Couple/cycle-specific characteristics Couples Fertilization mode, n (%) IVF 93 (66.0) ICSI 48 (34.0) No. of oocytes retrieved, mean ± SD 13.0 ± 7.7 No. of 2PN, mean ± SD 7.8 ± 5.2 No. of good-quality embryos, mean ± SD 5.6 ± 4.3 Fertilization rate (%), mean ± SD 61.2 ± 22.0 IVF outcomes, n (%) HCG test Positive 74 (59.2) Negative 51 (40.8) Clinical pregnancy Yes 57 (47.2) No 64 (52.8) Note. Data was described as n (%) or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; IIVF, in vitro fertilization; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; 2PN, two pronuclei. Table 3. REE concentrations of the IVF-embryo transfer couples
Elements Sample Median (IQR) Mean ± SD LOD Detection ratio (%) Ce (ng/mL) Serum 0.097 (0.061, 0.167) 0.149 ± 0.163 0.0004 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.034 (0.020, 0.05) 0.046 ± 0.044 0.0004 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.246 (0.168, 0.374) 0.289 ± 0.206 0.0004 100.0 La (ng/mL) Serum 0.080 (0.048, 0.124) 0.107 ± 0.097 0.0006 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.016 (0.009, 0.027) 0.022 ± 0.021 0.0006 99.3 Seminal plasma 0.089 (0.054, 0.128) 0.101 ± 0.084 0.0006 97.2 Nd (ng/mL) Serum 0.144 (0.097, 0.199) 0.172 ± 0.119 0.0003 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.069 (0.054, 0.101) 0.076 ± 0.034 0.0003 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.118 (0.080, 0.171) 0.130 ± 0.076 0.0003 100.0 Pr (ng/mL) Serum 0.026 (0.017, 0.040) 0.033 ± 0.026 0.0001 100.0 Follicular fluid 0.009 (0.007, 0.012) 0.010 ± 0.006 0.0001 100.0 Seminal plasma 0.023 (0.013, 0.036) 0.027 ± 0.020 0.0001 100.0 Sm (ng/mL) Serum 0.050 (0.031, 0.06) 0.053 ± 0.030 0.0004 99.3 Note. Data was described as Median (IQR), n (%), or mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; LOD, limit of detection. REE, rare earth elements; IVF, in vitro fertilization. S1. Relative risk of the LREE concentrations associated with the clinical pregnancy of IVF-embryo transfer
Elements Sample Model-1a Model-2b OR 95% CI P OR 95% CI P Ce serum 1.11 0.80 1.56 0.53 1.13 0.90 1.43 0.30 follicular fluid 1.02 0.73 1.42 0.92 0.95 0.78 1.14 0.57 seminal plasma 0.93 0.66 1.30 0.66 1.01 0.87 1.17 0.87 La serum 0.92 0.66 1.29 0.63 0.86 0.65 1.14 0.28 follicular fluid 0.96 0.68 1.34 0.81 0.99 0.80 1.22 0.90 seminal plasma 1.09 0.78 1.52 0.63 1.13 0.86 1.47 0.39 Nd serum 0.95 0.68 1.33 0.77 1.02 0.89 1.17 0.79 follicular fluid 0.95 0.68 1.33 0.77 0.93 0.75 1.15 0.52 seminal plasma 1.01 0.72 1.42 0.94 1.09 0.86 1.37 0.48 Pr serum 1.11 0.79 1.56 0.56 1.12 0.89 1.41 0.34 follicular fluid 1.27 0.94 1.72 0.12 1.31 1.00 1.72 0.05 seminal plasma 1.13 0.85 1.52 0.40 1.23 0.92 1.66 0.17 Sm serum 1.17 0.87 1.57 0.29 1.23 0.94 1.61 0.13 Note. aModel-1 uses log-binomial regression without adjusting confounders. bModel-2 uses log-binomial regression with adjusting age, BMI, fertilization mode, infertility type and smoking status. S2. Posterior inclusion probabilities (PIPs) for semen concentrations of REEs and clinical pregnancy using BKMR
Elements PIPs La 0.53 Ce 0.37 Pr 0.49 Nd 0.40 S3. Concentrations of rare earth elements in previous studies
References Region Sample type (ng/mL) Population Subgroup La Ce Pr Nd Sm This study Beijing, China Serum Women − 0.080
(0.048, 0.124)0.097
(0.061, 0.167)0.026
(0.017, 0.040)0.144
(0.097, 0.199)0.050
(0.031, 0.067)Follicular fluid Women − 0.016
(0.009, 0.027)0.034
(0.020, 0.055)0.009
(0.007, 0.012)0.069
(0.054, 0.101)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.0004)seminal plasma Man − 0.089
(0.054, 0.128)0.246
(0.168, 0.374)0.023
(0.013, 0.036)0.118
(0.080, 0.171)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.0004)[1] Shandong/Beijing,
ChinaSerum Women − 0.035
(0.027, 0.047)0.058
(0.044, 0.094)0.010
(0.008, 0.016)0.051
(0.038, 0.090)− [2] Beijing, China Serum Women − 0.076
(0.054, 0.099)0.137
(0.091, 0.179)0.029
(0.023, 0.035)0.178
(0.134, 0.226)0.123
(0.092, 0.164)[3] Beijing, China Plasma Women First trimester 0.073
(0.059, 0.096)0.121
(0.088, 0.162)0.031
(0.023, 0.039)0.162
(0.114, 0.225)0.047
(0.022, 0.077)Women Third trimester 0.071
(0.054, 0.088)0.103
(0.072, 0.138)0.030
(0.023, 0.039)0.176
(0.116, 0.238)0.053
(0.025, 0.093)[4] Shanxi, China Serum Women Cases 0.072
(0.052, 0.107)0.116
(0.080, 0.233)0.030
(0.023, 0.043)0.212
(0.156, 0.265)0.132
(0.098, 0.173)Controls 0.059
(0.045, 0.083)0.090
(0.063, 0.130)0.028
(0.022, 0.037)0.195
(0.150, 0.252)0.127
(0.096, 0.168)[5] Shanxi, China Serum Women First trimester 0.047
(0.036, 0.061)0.066
(0.049, 0.090)0.020
(0.016, 0.024)0.125
(0.103, 0.155)0.094
(0.076, 0.116)Women Second trimester 0.049
(0.038, 0.066)0.069
(0.056, 0.093)0.021
(0.017, 0.025)0.140
(0.109, 0.173)0.094
(0.078, 0.115)[6] Serbia Plasma Women Beginning of the delivery 0.67 ± 0.24a 0.17 ± 0.12 a 0.25 ± 0.09 a 0.78 ± 0.32 a 0.33 ± 0.16 a Umbilical cord plasm − − 0.091 ± 0.077 a 0.16 ± 0.08 a 0.059 ± 0.028 a 0.16 ± 0.09 a 0.12 ± 0.06 a [7] Hubei, China Urine (ug/g creatinine) Women Before delivery 0.066
(0.027, 0.149)0.065
(0.027, 0.149)0.015
(0.006, 0.036)0.043
(0.021, 0.094)− [8] Hubei, China Urine (ug/g creatinine) Women Before delivery − 0.065
(0.026, 0.151)− − − [9] Shanxi, China Umbilical cord tissue (ng/g) Women Cases 0.70
(0.46, 1.11)6.17
(2.56, 18.71)0.18
(0.10, 0.34)0.56
(0.38, 0.94)0.21
(0.11, 0.70)Controls 0.49
(0.23, 0.93)6.64
(2.28, 17.5)0.14
(0.08, 0.24)0.45
(0.20, 0.82)0.17
(0.04, 0.81)[10] Canary Islands, Spain umbilical cord blood − − 0.01
(0.01, 0.03)0.03
(0.02, 0.06)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.01)0.01
(< MDL, 0.01)< MDL
(< MDL, 0.01)[11]a Bangladesh umbilical cord blood − − 0.056 5.536 0.013 0.039 0.015 [12] Caucasus placental tissues (ng/g) − − 0.41
(0.25, 0.61)0.42
(0.27, 0.80)0.043
(0.029, 0.061)0.135
(0.087, 0.196)0.010
(0.006, 0.020)[12] Henan,
ChinaPlasma Woman and man Exposure
(job)0.138 ± 0.161 0.320 ± 0.350 0.031 ± 0.047 0.056 ± 0.087 0.0167 ± 0.029 Control 0.092 ± 0.115 0.240 ± 0.357 0.016 ± 0.019 0.035 ± 0.061 0.0087 ± 0.013 [13] Poland Semen
(ng/g)Man Control 21.5b
(2.27–269)44.0 b
(4.52–140)− − − Abnormal semen 17.5 b
(2.58–79.0)37.9 b
(4.63–167)− − − [14] Baotou,
ChinaWhole blood Non-pregnant women − 0.854
(0.702, 1.061)1.724
(1.446, 2.498)0.132
(0.110, 0.165)0.839
(0.587, 0.815)− Note. Most of the data are presented as “median (IQR)”. a: Data are presented as “mean ± s”. b: Data are presented as “median (minimum–maximum)”. S4. The LOD and detection rate of the rest rare earth elements
Elements Sample Median (IQR) LOD Detection ratio Eu Serum 0.001 (0.001, 0.002) 0.0010 52.5% Follicular fluid 0.002 (0.000, 0.004) 0.0010 63.8% Seminal plasma 0.004 (0.000, 0.007) 0.0010 68.8% Gd Serum 0.004 (0.003, 0.007) 0.0020 75.9% Follicular fluid 0.013 (0.007, 0.020) 0.0020 61.7% Seminal plasma 0.024 (0.014, 0.039) 0.0020 66.0% Tb Serum 0.001 (0.000, 0.001) 0.0004 45.4% Follicular fluid 0.001 (0.000, 0.002) 0.0004 39.7% Seminal plasma 0.002 (0.000, 0.005) 0.0004 73.0% Dy Serum 0.006 (0.001, 0.009) 0.0010 64.5% Follicular fluid 0.008 (0.002, 0.014) 0.0010 53.2% Seminal plasma 0.012 (0.004, 0.025) 0.0010 74.5% Ho Serum 0.002 (0.001, 0.002) 0.0020 55.3% Follicular fluid 0.002 (0.002, 0.005) 0.0020 65.2% Seminal plasma 0.003 (0.002, 0.004) 0.0020 68.8% Er Serum 0.003 (0.001, 0.005) 0.0012 65.2% Follicular fluid 0.004 (0.001, 0.007) 0.0012 70.9% Seminal plasma 0.005 (0.000, 0.011) 0.0012 73.8% Tm Serum 0.000 (0.000, 0.000) 0.0040 33.3% Follicular fluid −0.002 (−0.003, −0.001) 0.0040 0.0% Seminal plasma −0.002 (−0.003, −0.001) 0.0040 2.1% Yb Serum 0.002 (0.001, 0.003) 0.0010 53.9% Follicular fluid 0.001 (−0.001, 0.005) 0.0010 50.4% Seminal plasma 0.001 (−0.001, 0.005) 0.0010 51.1% Lu Serum 0.000 (−0.002, 0.001) 0.0001 30.5% Follicular fluid −0.004 (−0.004, −0.003) 0.0001 1.4% Seminal plasma −0.004 (−0.005, −0.003) 0.0001 5.7% -
[1] Adeel M, Lee JY, Zain M, et al . Cryptic footprints of rare earth elements on natural resources and living organisms. Environ Int,2019 ;127 ,785 −800 .[2] Wei BG, Li YH, Li HR, et al . Rare earth elements in human hair from a mining area of China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf,2013 ;96 ,118 −23 .[3] Gwenzi W, Mangori L, Danha C, et al . Sources, behaviour, and environmental and human health risks of high-technology rare earth elements as emerging contaminants. Sci Total Environ,2018 ;636 ,299 −313 . doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.235[4] Gonzalez V, Vignati DAL, Leyval C, et al. Environmental fate and ecotoxicity of lanthanides: are they a uniform group beyond chemistry? Environ Int, 2014; 71, 148-57. [5] Hidayah NN, Abidin SZ . The evolution of mineral processing in extraction of rare earth elements using liquid-liquid extraction: a review. Miner Eng,2018 ;121 ,146 −57 .[6] Pagano G, Aliberti F, Guida M, et al . Rare earth elements in human and animal health: state of art and research priorities. Environ Res,2015 ;142 ,215 −20 .[7] Balaram V . Rare earth elements: a review of applications, occurrence, exploration, analysis, recycling, and environmental impact. Geosci Front,2019 ;10 ,1285 −303 .[8] Migaszewski Z M, Gałuszka A . The characteristics, occurrence, and geochemical behavior of rare earth elements in the environment: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol,2015 ;45 ,429 −71 .[9] Pagano G, Thomas PJ, Di Nunzio A, et al . Human exposures to rare earth elements: present knowledge and research prospects. Environ Res,2019 ;171 ,493 −500 .[10] Yan Y, Chi HF, Liu JR, et al . Provenance and bioaccessibility of rare earth elements in atmospheric particles in areas impacted by the optoelectronic industry. Environ Pollut,2020 ;263 ,114349 .[11] Marzec-Wróblewska U, Kamiński P, Łakota P, et al . Determination of rare earth elements in human sperm and association with semen quality. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol,2015 ;69 ,191 −201 .[12] Squadrone S, Brizio P, Stella C, et al . Rare earth elements in marine and terrestrial matrices of Northwestern Italy: implications for food safety and human health. Sci Total Environ,2019 ;660 ,1383 −91 .[13] Dai YB, Sun S, Li Y, et al . Residual levels and health risk assessment of rare earth elements in Chinese resident diet: a market-based investigation. Sci Total Environ,2022 ;828 ,154119 .[14] Meryem B, Ji HB, Gao Y, et al . Distribution of rare earth elements in agricultural soil and human body (scalp hair and urine) near smelting and mining areas of Hezhang, China. J Rare Earths,2016 ;34 ,1156 −67 .[15] Rodushkin I, Axelsson MD . Application of double focusing sector field ICP-MS for multielemental characterization of human hair and nails. Part II. A study of the inhabitants of northern Sweden. Sci Total Environ,2000 ;262 ,21 −36 .[16] Bai Y, Long CM, Hu GP, et al . Association of blood chromium and rare earth elements with the risk of DNA damage in chromate exposed population. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol,2019 ;72 ,103237 .[17] Gaman L, Radoi MP, Delia CE, et al . Concentration of heavy metals and rare earth elements in patients with brain tumours: analysis in tumour tissue, non-tumour tissue, and blood. Int J Environ Health Res,2021 ;31 ,741 −54 .[18] Poniedziałek B, Rzymski P, Pięt M, et al . Rare-earth elements in human colostrum milk. Environ Sci Pollut Res,2017 ;24 ,26148 −54 .[19] de Angelis P, Miller RK, Darrah TH, et al . Elemental content of the placenta: a comparison between two high-risk obstetrical populations, adult women carrying multiples and adolescents carrying singletons. Environ Res,2017 ;158 ,553 −65 .[20] Li MS, Zhuang LL, Zhang GH, et al . Association between exposure of light rare earth elements and outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in North China. Sci Total Environ,2021 ;762 ,143106 .[21] Chen J, Xiao HI, Qi T, et al . Rare earths exposure and male infertility: the injury mechanism study of rare earths on male mice and human sperm. Environ Sci Pollut Res,2015 ;22 ,2076 −86 .[22] Adebayo OA, Akinloye O, Adaramoye OA . Cerium oxide nanoparticle elicits oxidative stress, endocrine imbalance and lowers sperm characteristics in testes of balb/c mice. Andrologia,2018 ;50 ,e12920 .[23] Zhu ZY, Shen AY, Shen SD . Effect of rare earth on maturation and parthenogenetic activation of mouse oocytes. J China Public Health,2005 ;21 ,281 −2 . (In Chinese)[24] ChenJX, Wang AL, An H, et al . Association between light rare earth elements in maternal plasma and the risk of spontaneous preterm birth: a nested case-control study from the Beijing birth cohort study. Environ Health,2023 ;22 ,73 . doi: 10.1186/s12940-023-01027-1[25] Dong RH, Zhang H, Zhang MR, et al . Association between phthalate exposure and the use of plastic containers in shanghai adults. Biomed Environ Sci,2017 ;30 ,727 −36 .[26] Liang, Rong, Wang, et al . Correlation between combined urinary metal exposure and grip strength under three statistical models: a cross-sectional study in rural Guangxi. Biomed Environ Sci,2024 ;37 ,3 −18 .[27] Johnson CL, Paulose-Ram R, Ogden CL, et al. National health and nutrition examination survey: analytic guidelines, 1999-2010. Vital Health Stat 2, 2013; 1-24. [28] Evers JL . Female subfertility. Lancet,2002 ;360 ,151 −9 .[29] Maheshwari A, Stofberg L, Bhattacharya S . Effect of overweight and obesity on assisted reproductive technology—a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update,2007 ;13 ,433 −44 . doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmm017[30] Badea M, Luzardo OP, González-Antuña A, et al . Body burden of toxic metals and rare earth elements in non-smokers, cigarette smokers and electronic cigarette users. Environ Res,2018 ;166 ,269 −75 .[31] Egler EG, Niemeyer JC, Correia FV, et al . Effects of rare earth elements (REE) on terrestrial organisms: current status and future directions. Ecotoxicology,2022 ;31 ,689 −99 .[32] Rodgers PJ, Irving-Rodgers HF . Formation of the ovarian follicular antrum and follicular fluid. Biol Reprod,2010 ;82 ,1021 −9 . doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.109.082941[33] Zhou H, Ohno N, Terada N, et al . Involvement of follicular basement membrane and vascular endothelium in blood-follicle barrier formation of mice revealed by 'in vivo cryotechnique'. Reproduction,2007 ;134 ,307 −17 .[34] Shalgi R, Kraicer P, Rimon A, et al . Proteins of human follicular fluid: the blood-follicle barrier. Fertil Steril,1973 ;24 ,429 −34 .[35] Silberstein T, Saphier O, Paz-Tal O, et al . Trace element concentrations in follicular fluid of small follicles differ from those in blood serum, and may represent long-term exposure. Fertil Steril,2009 ;91 ,1771 −4 .[36] Revelli A, Piane LD, Casano S, et al . Follicular fluid content and oocyte quality: from single biochemical markers to metabolomics. Reprod Biol Endocrinol,2009 ;7 ,40 .[37] Oral R, Bustamante P, Warnau M, et al . Cytogenetic and developmental toxicity of cerium and lanthanum to sea urchin embryos. Chemosphere,2010 ;81 ,194 −8 .[38] Trifuoggi M, Pagano G, Guida M, et al . Comparative toxicity of seven rare earth elements in sea urchin early life stages. Environ Sci Pollut Res,2017 ;24 ,20803 −10 .[39] Cui J, Zhang ZY, Bai W, et al . Effects of rare earth elements La and Yb on the morphological and functional development of zebrafish embryos. J Environ Sci,2012 ;24 ,209 −13 .[40] Wei J, Wang CR, Yin SJ, et al . Concentrations of rare earth elements in maternal serum during pregnancy and risk for fetal neural tube defects. Environ Int,2020 ;137 ,105542 .[41] Liu LJ, Wang LL, Ni WL, et al . Rare earth elements in umbilical cord and risk for orofacial clefts. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf,2021 ;207 ,111284 .[42] Hanana H, Kowalczyk J, André C, et al . Insights on the toxicity of selected rare earth elements in rainbow trout hepatocytes. Comp Biochem Physiol C: Toxicol Pharmacol,2021 ;248 ,109097 .[43] Pagano G, Guida M, Tommasi F, et al . Health effects and toxicity mechanisms of rare earth elements—Knowledge gaps and research prospects. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf,2015 ;115 ,40 −8 . -
24097+Supplementary Materials.pdf