Leyla BAHAR, Semra KAHRAMAN, Nazan ERAS, Caroline PIRKEVI

Comparison of endometrial biopsies of fertile women and womenwith repeated implantation failure at the ultrastructural level

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cellular properties of endometrial tissues from fertile patients and patients having at least 3 previous in vitro fertilization failures, during the implantation window. The ultrastructural evaluation of the endometrium in the implantation window may shed light on the complexity of the implantation failure paradigm. Materials and methods: The study involved 23 women, 14 infertile with a clinical diagnosis of repeated implantation failure (RIF) and 9 fertile, defined as the control group. Endometrial samples were examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Results: In the control group, secretory vacuoles and cytoplasmic projections filled with secretory material, called pinopodes, were noted; microvilli were observed on some apical surfaces; and ciliated cells were absent. In the RIF group, the number of pinopodes was remarkably lower, with some of them being immature. Moreover, decidualization of stromal cells was not frequent and fewer epithelial cells with poor secretory vacuoles were discerned. Conclusion: TEM analyses of endometrial samples from the RIF group revealed dramatic differences at the ultrastructural level compared to the controls, which may well be an underlying cause of their infertility.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Endometrial receptivity, recurrent implantation failure, transmission electron microscopy

Comparison of endometrial biopsies of fertile women and womenwith repeated implantation failure at the ultrastructural level

Keywords:

Endometrial receptivity, recurrent implantation failure, transmission electron microscopy,

PDF

___

Guzeloglu-Kayisli O, Basar M, Arici A. Basic aspects of implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15: 728–739.
Nikas G, Aghajanova L. Endometrial pinopodes: some more understanding on human implantation? RBM Online 2002; 4: 18–23. 3. Fan W, Li SW, Li WH, Wang Y, Gong Y, Ma QH, Luo S. FOXO 1 expression and regulation in endometrial tissue during the
menstrual cycle and in early pregnancy decidua. Gynecol
Obstet Invest 2012; 74: 56–63. 4. Yılmaz N, Kılıç S, Madendağ Y, Madendağ I, Özgün A, Özakşit G, Batıoğlu S. Endometrial parameters in IVF and IUI administration on elderly women. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 343–348.
Murphy CR. Understanding the apical surface markers of uterine receptivity: pinopods or uterodomes? Human Reprod 2000; 15: 2451–2454.
Adams SM, Murphy CR. A successful pregnancy following SEM fine tuning of hormonal priming. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2001; 1: 3.
Salehnia M. Progesterone shifts the pinopodes expression of mouse endometrium to pre-implantation time after ovarian hyperstimulation. Iranian J Reprod Med 2003; 1: 20–23.
Quinn CE, Casper RF. Pinopodes: a questionable role in endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15: 229– 236.
Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Rème T, Hedon B, De Vos J, Hamamah S. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1436–1445.
Van Vaerenbergh I, McIntire R, Van Lommel L, Devroey P, Giudice L, Bourgaın C. Gene expression during successful implantation in a natural cycle. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 15–18.
Sandra O, Mansouri-Attia N, Lea RG. Novel aspects of endometrial function: a biological sensor of embryo quality and driver of pregnancy success. Reprod Fertil Dev 2011; 24: 68–79.
Puri CP, Katkam RR, Sachdeva G, Patil V, Manjramkar DD, Kholkute SD. Endometrial contraception: modulation of molecular determinants of uterine receptivity. Steroids 2000; 65: 783–794.
Imakawa K, Chang KT, Christenson RK. Pre-implantation conceptus and maternal uterine communications: molecular events leading to successful implantation. J Reprod Dev 2004; 50: 155–169.
Rashid NA, Lalitkumar S, Lalitkumar PG, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Endometrial receptivity and human embryo implantation. Am J Reprod Immunol 2011; 66: 23–30.
Achache H, Revel A. Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12: 731–746.
Nikas G, Aghajanova L. Endometrial pinopodes: some more understanding on human implantation? RBM Online 2002; 4: 18–23.
Hannan NJ, Stephens AN, Rainczuk A, Hincks C, Rombauts LJF, Salamonsen LA. 2D-DiGE analysis of the human endometrial secretome reveals differences between receptive and nonreceptive states in fertile and infertile women. J Proteome Res 2010; 9: 6256–6264.
Demir R, Kayisli UA, Celik-Ozenci C, Korgun ET, Demir- Weusten AY, Arici A. Structural differentiation of human uterine luminal and glandular epithelium during early pregnancy: an ultrastructural and immunohistochemical study. Placenta 2002; 23: 672–684.
Singh I. Textbook of Human Histology with Colour Atlas. 6th ed. New Delhi, India: Jaypee; 2011.
Kurita T, Nakamura H. Mullerian duct, epithelium, mezenchyme. In: Aplin JD, Fazleabas AT, Glasser SR, Giudice LC, Editors. The Endometrium. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2008. pp. 1–19.
Salamonsen LA, Nie G, Hannan NJ, Dimitriadis E. Society for Reproductive Biology Founders’ Lecture. Preparing fertile soil: the importance of endometrial receptivity. Reprod Fertil Dev 2009; 21: 923–934.
Gellersen B, Reimann K, Samalecos A, Aupers S, Bamberger AM. Invasiveness of human endometrial stromal cells is promoted by decidualization and by trophoblast derived signals. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 862–873.
Ulbrich SE, Gross K, Schmidt S, Blum H, Rottmayer R, Hiendleder S, Fröhlich T, Arnold GJ, Wolf E, Meyer HHD et al. Does estradiol-17 β cause cycle-dependent modulations of uterine milk protein in bovine endometrium? Reprod Fertil Dev 2006; 19: 202–203.
Li MQ, Jin LP. Ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization alters the protein profile expression in endometrial secretion Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013; 6: 1964–1971.
Burton GJ, Jauniaux E, Charnock-Jones DS. Human early placental development: potential roles of the endometrial glands. Placenta 2007; 28: 64–69.
Tawfeek MA, Eid MA, Hasan AM, Mostafa M, El-Serogy HA. Assessment of leukemia inhibitory factor and glycoprotein 130 expression in endometrium and uterine flushing: a possible diagnostic tool for impaired fertility. BMC Womens Health 2012; 12: 10.
Parmar T, Sachdeva G, Savardekar L, Katkam RR, Nimbkar- Joshi S, Gadkar-Sable S, Salvi V, Manjramkar DD, Meherji P, Puri CP. Protein repertoire of human uterine fluid during the mid-secretory phase of the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 379–386.
Turgut A, Goruk NY, Tunç SY, Agaçayak E, Alabalik U, Yalinkaya A, Gül T. Expression of extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer (EMMPRIN) in the endometrium of patients with repeated implantation failure after in vitro fertilization. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014; 18: 275–280.
Schmitz C, Yu L, Bocca S, Anderson S, Cunha-Filho JS, Rhavi BS, Oehninger S. Role for the endometrial epithelial protein MFG-E8 and its receptor integrin avb3 in human implantation: results of an in vitro trophoblast attachment study using established human cell lines. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 874–883.
Franchi A, Bocca S, Anderson S, Riggs R, Oehninger S. Expression of milk fat globule EGF-factor 8 (MFG-E8) mRNA and protein in the human endometrium and its regulation by prolactin. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17: 360–371.