Background To explore the molecular basis of the different ultrasonic patterns of the human endometrium, and the molecular marker basis of local injury. Methodology/Principal Findings The mRNA and protein expression of FKBP52, progesterone receptor A (PRA), progesterone receptor B (PRB), and HB-EGF were detected in different patterns of the endometrium by real-time RTPCR and immunohistochemistry. There were differences in the mRNA and protein expression of FKBP52, PRB, and HB-EGF in the triple line (Pattern A) and homogeneous (Pattern C) endometrium in the window of implantation. No difference was detected in PRA expression. After local injury, the mRNA expression of HB-EGF significantly increased. In contrast, there was no difference in the mRNA expression of FKBP52, PRB, or PRA. The protein expression of FKBP52, PRB, and HB-EGF increased after local injury. There was no difference in the PRA expression after local injury. Conclusions PRB, FKBP52, and HB-EGF may be the molecular basis for the classification of the ultrasonic patterns. HB-EGF may be the molecular basis of local injury. Ultrasonic evaluation on the day of ovulation can be effective in predicting the outcome of implantation.
References
[1]
Tanaka M, Kyo S, Kanaya T, Yatabe N, Nakamura M, et al. (2003) Evidence of the monoclonal composition of human endometrial epithelial glands and mosaic pattern of clonal distribution in luminal epithelium. Am J Pathol 163: 295–301.
[2]
Mulac-Jericevic B, Conneely OM (2005) Reproductive tissue-selective actions of progesterone receptors. Ernst Schering Res Found Workshop 19–37.
[3]
Simon C, Dominguez F, Remohi J, Pellicer A (2001) Embryo effects in human implantation: embryonic regulation of endometrial molecules in human implantation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 943: 1–16.
[4]
Reddy VR, Gupta SM, Meherji PK (2001) Expression of integrin receptors on peripheral lymphocytes: correlation with endometrial receptivity. Am J Reprod Immunol 46: 188–195.
[5]
Mulac-Jericevic B, Lydon JP, DeMayo FJ, Conneely OM (2003) Defective mammary gland morphogenesis in mice lacking the progesterone receptor B isoform. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9744–9749.
[6]
Tranguch S, Smith DF, Dey SK (2006) Progesterone receptor requires a co-chaperone for signalling in uterine biology and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 13: 651–660.
[7]
Tranguch S, Cheung-Flynn J, Daikoku T, Prapapanich V, Cox MB, et al. (2005) Cochaperone immunophilin FKBP52 is critical to uterine receptivity for embryo implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 14326–14331.
[8]
Jessmon P, Leach RE, Armant DR (2009) Diverse functions of HB-EGF during pregnancy. Mol Reprod Dev 76: 1116–1127.
[9]
Killick SR (2007) Ultrasound and the receptivity of the endometrium. Reprod Biomed Online 15: 63–67.
[10]
Shufaro Y, Simon A, Neri L, Fatum M (2008) Thin unresponsive endometrium-a possible complication of surgical curettage compromising ART outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 25: 421–425.
[11]
Gonen Y, Casper RF (1990) Prediction of implantation by the sonographic appearance of the endometrium during controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF). J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 7: 146–152.
[12]
Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, Segal I, Schechtman E, et al. (2003) Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 79: 1317–1322.
[13]
Almog B, Shalom-Paz E, Dufort D, Tulandi T (2010) Promoting implantation by local injury to the endometrium. Fertil Steril 94: 2026–2029.
[14]
Gnainsky Y, Granot I, Aldo PB, Barash A, Or Y, et al. (2010) Local injury of the endometrium induces an inflammatory response that promotes successful implantation. Fertil Steril 94: 2030–2036.
[15]
Karimzadeh MA, Ayazi RM, Tabibnejad N (2009) Endometrial local injury improves the pregnancy rate among recurrent implantation failure patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised clinical trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49: 677–680.
[16]
Campbell KL, Rockett JC (2006) Biomarkers of ovulation, endometrial receptivity, fertilisation, implantation and early pregnancy progression. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 20: Suppl 113–25.
[17]
Shufaro Y, Simon A, Laufer N, Fatum M (2008) Thin unresponsive endometrium–a possible complication of surgical curettage compromising ART outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 25: 421–425.
[18]
Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Reme T, et al. (2009) Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod 24: 1436–1445.
[19]
Davies TH, Sanchez ER (2005) FKBP52. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 37: 42–47.
[20]
Lim HJ, Dey SK (2009) HB-EGF: a unique mediator of embryo-uterine interactions during implantation. Exp Cell Res 315: 619–626.
[21]
Xie H, Wang H, Tranguch S, Iwamoto R, Mekada E, et al. (2007) Maternal heparin-binding-EGF deficiency limits pregnancy success in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 18315–18320.
[22]
Anckaert E, Mees M, Schiettecatte J, Smitz J (2002) Clinical validation of a fully automated 17beta-estradiol and progesterone assay (VIDAS) for use in monitoring assisted reproduction treatment. Clin Chem Lab Med 40: 824–831.
[23]
Brugger N, Otzdorff C, Walter B, Hoffmann B, Braun J (2011) Quantitative determination of progesterone (P4) in canine blood serum using an enzyme-linked fluorescence assay. Reprod Domest Anim 46: 870–873.
[24]
Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ (2008) Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C (T) method. Nat Protoc 3: 1101–1108.
[25]
Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J (1975) Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 122: 262–263.
[26]
Jackson KS, Brudney A, Hastings JM, Mavrogianis PA, Kim JJ, et al. (2007) The altered distribution of the steroid hormone receptors and the chaperone immunophilin FKBP52 in a baboon model of endometriosis is associated with progesterone resistance during the window of uterine receptivity. Reprod Sci 14: 137–150.
