Proteomic pattern of implantative human endometrial fluid in in vitro fertilization cycles

  • Roberto Matorras
  • Sara Quevedo
  • Blanca Corral
  • Begoña Prieto
  • Antonia Exposito
  • Rosario Mendoza
  • Aintzane Rabanal
  • María Diaz-Nuñez
  • Marcos Ferrando
  • Felix Elortza
  • Amagoia Ametzazurra
  • Daniel Nagore
Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess whether there are proteins in endometrial fluid aspirate (EFA) that predict implantation.

Methods

The population under study consisted of 285 women undergoing embryo transfer (ET). Endometrial fluid aspiration was performed immediately before ET. Results of proteomic analysis of EFA were compared between 33 cases who achieved pregnancy and 33 who did not. Samples were analysed by 2D electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. Blood samples were studied by ELISA Pregnancy rates and maternal complications were compared to those in women refusing aspiration.

Results

We found 23 proteins differentially expressed in the EFA in conception cycles: 4 up-regulated proteins and 19 down-regulated (FC = 0.31 0.78) (among others, arginase-1, actin B, PARK-7, cofilin-1, stathmin, annexin-2 and CAPZB). Among the five studied proteins that were differentially expressed in EFA, none was differentially expressed in serum. The aspiration procedure had no impact on pregnancy rate. No maternal complications were reported.

Conclusions

We found a very different protein profile in implantative cycles, the majority of proteins being down-regulated. This probably reflects a different endometrial functional status, more favourable to implantation. EFA proteomic analysis could be a useful tool in the planning ET strategies.

Keywords

Endometrium Implantation IVF Endometrial fluid Proteomics 

Notes

Author contributions

RM: manuscript writing, supervision. SQ: data collection. BC: data collection. BP: supervision. AE: investigation, manuscript writing. RM: protocol. AR: supervision. DM: data collection. MF: protocol. FE: methodology. AA: methodology, validation, software. DN: methodology, validation, software

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Informed consent

We obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (CEIC 09/54 and CEIC 11/45) and informed consent from participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Matorras R, Urquijo E, Mendoza R, Corcóstegui B, Expósito A, Rodríguez-Escudero FJ (2002) Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers. Hum Reprod 17:1762–1766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedler S, Schenker JG, Herman A, Lewin A (1996) The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: a critical review. Hum Reprod Update 2:323–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valdez-Morales FJ, Gamboa-Domínguez A, Vital-Reyes VS, Cruz JC, Chimal-Monroy J, Franco-Murillo Y, Cerbón M (2015) Changes in receptivity epithelial cell markers of endometrium after ovarian stimulation treatments: its role during implantation window. Reprod Health 12:45–56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scotchie JG, Fritz MA, Mocanu M, Lessey BA, Young SL (2009) Proteomic analysis of the luteal endometrial secretome. Reprod Sci 16:883–893CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casado-Vela J, Rodriguez-Suarez E, Iloro I, Ametzazurra A, Alkorta N, García-Velasco JA, Matorras R, Prieto B, González S, Nagore D, Simón L, Elortza F (2009) Comprehensive proteomic analysis of human endometrial fluid aspirate. J Proteome Res 8:4622–4632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ametzazurra A, Matorras R, García-Velasco JA, Prieto B, Simón L, Martínez A, Nagore D (2009) Endometrial fluid is a specific and non-invasive biological sample for protein biomarker identification in endometriosis. Hum Reprod 24:954–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edgell TA, Rombauts LJ, Salamonsen LA (2013) Assessing receptivity in the endometrium: the need for a rapid, non-invasive test. Reprod Biomed Online 27:486–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gray CA, Taylor KM, Ramsey WS, Hill JR, Bazer FW, Bartol FF, Spencer TE (2001) Endometrial glands are required for preimplantation conceptus elongation and survival. Biol Reprod 64:1608–1613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunlap KA, Filant J, Hayashi K, Rucker EB 3rd, Song G, Deng JM, Behringer RR, DeMayo FJ, Lydon J, Jeong JW, Spencer TE (2011) Postnatal deletion of Wnt7a inhibits uterine gland morphogenesis and compromises adult fertility in mice. Biol Reprod 85:386–396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garrido-Gómez T, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Diaz-Gimeno P, Vilella F, Simón C (2013) Profiling the gene signature of endometrial receptivity: clinical results. Fertil Steril 99:1078–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Díaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Bosch N, Martínez-Conejero JA, Alamá P, Garrido N, Pellicer A, Simón C (2013) The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 99:508–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vilella F, Ramirez LB, Simón C (2013) Lipidomics as an emerging tool to predict endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 99:1100–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bourgain C, Devroey P (2003) The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 9:515–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P (2002) The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 5:26–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noyes RH, Hertig AT, Rock J (1950) Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil Steril 1:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haouzi D, Dechaud H, Assou S, De Vos J, Hamamah S (2012) Insights into human endometrial receptivity from transcriptomic and proteomic data. Reprod Biomed Online 24:23–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Gaast MH, Beier-Hellwig K, Fauser BC, Beier HM, Macklon NS (2003) Endometrial secretion aspiration prior to embryo transfer does not reduce implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 7:105–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boomsma CM, Kavelaars A, Eijkemans MJ, Amarouchi K, Teklenburg G, Gutknecht D, Fauser BJ, Heijnen CJ, Macklon NS (2009) Cytokine profiling in endometrial secretions: a non-invasive window on endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 18:85–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen JI, Hannan NJ, Mak Y, Nicholls PK, Zhang J, Rainczuk A, Stanton PG, Robertson DM, Salamonsen LA, Stephens AN (2009) Proteomic characterization of midproliferative and midsecretory human endometrium. J Proteome Res 8:2032–2044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DeSouza L, Diehl G, Yang EC, Guo J, Rodrigues MJ, Romaschin AD, Colgan TJ, Siu KW (2005) Proteomic analysis of the proliferative and secretory phases of the human endometrium: protein identification and differential protein expression. Proteomics 5:270–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parmar T, Gadkar-Sable S, Savardekar L, Katkam R, Dharma S, Meherji P, Puri CP, Sachdeva G (2009) Protein profiling of human endometrial tissues in the midsecretory and proliferative phases of the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril 92:1091–1103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li J, Tan Z, Li MT, Liu YL, Liu Q, Gu XF, Zhou JZ, Zhuang GL (2006) Study of altered expression of annexin IV and human endometrial receptivity. Zhonghua Fu Chan KeZaZhi. 41:803–805Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Domínguez F, Garrido-Gómez T, López JA, Camafeita E, Quiñonero A, Pellicer A, Simón C (2009) Proteomic analysis of the human receptive versus non-receptive endometrium using differential in-gel electrophoresis and MALDI-MS unveils stathmin 1 and annexin A2 as differentially regulated. Hum Reprod 24:2607–2617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forde N, McGettigan PA, Mehta JP, O’Hara L, Mamo S, Bazer FW, Spencer TE, Lonergan P (2014) Proteomic analysis of uterine fluid during the pre-implantation period of pregnancy in cattle. Reproduction 147:575–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yap J, Foo CF, Lee MY, Stanton PG, Dimitriadis E (2011) Proteomic analysis identifies interleukin 11 regulated plasma membrane proteins in human endometrial epithelial cells in vitro. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 9:73–87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tressler RJ, Updyke TV, Yeatman T, Nicolson GL (1993) Extracellular annexin II is associated with divalent cation-dependent tumor cell-endothelial cell adhesion of metastatic RAW117 large-cell lymphoma cells. J Cell Biochem 53:265–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rescher U, Ludwig C, Konietzko V, Kharitonenkov A, Gerke V (2008) Tyrosine phosphorylation of annexin A2 regulates Rho-mediated actin rearrangement and cell adhesion. J Cell Sci 121:2177–2185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolberg AS, Roubey RA (2005) Annexin A2: better left alone. Blood 105:1845–1846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mirkin S, Arslan M, Churikov D, Corica A, Diaz JI, Williams S, Bocca S, Oehninger S (2005) In search of candidate genes critically expressed in the human endometrium during the window of implantation. Hum Reprod 20:2104–2117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schild RL, Knobloch C, Dorn C, Fimmers R, van der Ven H, Hansmann M (2001) Endometrial receptivity in an in vitro fertilization program as assessed by spiral artery blood flow, endometrial thickness, endometrial volume, and uterine artery blood flow. Fertil Steril 75:361–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Matorras
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara Quevedo
    • 1
  • Blanca Corral
    • 1
  • Begoña Prieto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antonia Exposito
    • 1
  • Rosario Mendoza
    • 1
  • Aintzane Rabanal
    • 1
  • María Diaz-Nuñez
    • 1
  • Marcos Ferrando
    • 2
  • Felix Elortza
    • 3
  • Amagoia Ametzazurra
    • 4
  • Daniel Nagore
    • 4
  1. 1.Human Reproduction Unit, Cruces University Hospital. BiocrucesBasque Country UniversityBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, IVI BilbaoBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.CIC- Biogune, Science and Technology Park of BizkaiaDerioSpain
  4. 4.Progenika- Biopharma SA. Grifols. Science and Technology Park of BizkaiaDerioSpain

Personalised recommendations