Advertisement

A comparison of polarized and non-polarized human endometrial monolayer culture systems on murine embryo development

  • Mohamad Reza Baghaban Eslami Nejad
  • Mojtaba Rezazadeh Valojerdi
  • Saeed Kazemi Ashtiani
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

Co-culture of embryos with various somatic cells has been suggested as a promising approach to improve embryo development. Despite numerous reports regarding the beneficial effects of epithelial cells from the female genital tract on embryo development in a co-culture system, little is known about the effect of these cells when being cultured under a polarized condition on embryo growth. Our study evaluated the effects of in vitro polarized cells on pre-embryo development.

Methods

Human endometrial tissue was obtained from uterine specimens excised at total hysterectomy performed for benign indications. Epithelial cells were promptly isolated and cultured either on extra-cellular matrix gel (ECM-Gel) coated millipore filter inserts (polarized) or plastic surfaces (non-polarized). The epithelial nature of the cells cultured on plastic was confirmed through immunohistochemistry, and polarization of cells cultured on ECM-Gel was evaluated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). One or two-cell stage embryos of a superovulated NMRI mouse were then flushed and placed in culture with either polarized or non-polarized cells and medium alone. Development rates were determined for all embryos daily and statistically compared. At the end of the cultivation period, trophectoderm (TE) and inner cell mass (ICM) of expanded blastocysts from each group were examined microscopically.

Results

Endometrial epithelial cells cultured on ECM-Gel had a highly polarized columnar shape as opposed to the flattened shape of the cells cultured on a plastic surface. The two-cell embryos cultured on a polarized monolayer had a higher developmental rate than those from the non-polarized cells. There was no statistically significant difference; still, the blastocysts from the polarized monolayer, in comparison with the non-polarized group, had a significantly higher mean cell number. The development of one-cell embryos in the polarized and non-polarized groups showed no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion

Polarized cells could improve in vitro embryo development from the two-cell stage more in terms of quality (increasing blastocyst cellularity) than in terms of developmental rate.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Royan Institute. We thank the staff of the Department of Electron Microscopy of the Sahid Beheshty University for ultrastructural evaluation, and the clinicians in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Arash and Tehran Hospital for supplying endometrial samples.

References

  1. 1.
    Quinn p, Kerin JF, Warnes GM: Improved pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil Steril. 1985, 44: 493-498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tervit HR, Whittingham DG, Rowson LEA: Successful culture in vitro of sheep and cattle ova. J Reprod Fertil. 1972, 30: 493-497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neider GL, Macon GR: Uterine and oviductal protein secretion during early pregnancy in the mouse. J Reprod Fert. 1987, 81: 287-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leese HJ: The formation and function of oviduct fluid. J Reprod Fert. 1988, 82: 283-856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman P, McLaven A: Cleavage rate of mouse embryos in vivo and in vitro. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1970, 24: 203-207.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harlow GM, Quinn P: Development of preimplantation mouse embryo in vivo and in vitro. Aust J Biol Sci. 1982, 35: 187-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erbach GT, Lawitts JA, Papaioannou VE, Biggers JD: Differential growth of the mouse premplantation embryo in chemically defined media. Biol Reprod. 1994, 50: 1027-1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jung T, Fisher B: Correlation between diameter and DNA or protein synthetic activity in rabbit blastocyst. Biol Reprod. 1988, 39: 1111-1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carney EW, Foote RH: Effects of super ovulation, embryo recovery, culture system and embryo transfer on development of rabbit embryos in vivo and in vitro. J Reprod Ferrtil. 1990, 89: 543-551. 10.1530/jrf.0.0890543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitzgerald L, Di Mattina M: Improved medium for long-term culture of human embryos overcomes the in vitro developmental block and increase blastocyst formation. Fertil steril. 1992, 57: 641-647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barmat LI, Worrilow KC, Payton BV: Growth factor expression by human oviduct and buffalo rat liver co-culture cells. Fertil Steril. 1997, 67: 775-779. 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81382-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frasor J, Sherbahn R, Soltes B, Molo MW, Binor Z, Radwanska E, Rawlins R: Animal experimentation: optimizing tubal epithelial cell growth promotes mouse embryo hatching in co- culture. J Assit Reprod Genet. 1996, 5: 423-430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoshi K, Kanno Y, Katayose H, Yanagida K, Suzuki R, Sato A: Coculture of mouse embryo with cryopreserved human oviduct epithelial cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1994, 11: 367-372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gandolfi F, Moor RM: Stimulation of early embryonic development in the sheep by co-culture with oviduct epithelial cells. J Reprod Fert. 1987, 81: 23-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sakkas D, Trounson AO, Kola I: In vivo cleavage rates and viability obtained for early cleavage mouse embryo in co-culture with oviduct cells. Roprod Fertil Dev. 1989, 1: 127-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lavranos TC, Seamark RF: Addition of steroid to embryo-uterine monolayer co-culture enhances embryo survival and implantation in vitro. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1989, 1: 41-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thibodeaux J, Godke R: In vitro enhancement of early stage embryos with co-culture. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992, 116: 364-372.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fukui Y, McGowan LT, James RW, Pugh PA, Tervit HR: Factors affecting the in vitro development of blastocysts of bovine oocytes matured and fertilized in vitro. J Reprod Fertil. 1991, 92: 125-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bongso A, Soon-Chye NG, Chui-Yee Fong, Shan Ratnam: Co-cultures: a new lead in embryo quality improvement for assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1991, 56: 179-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glasser SR, Julian J, Decker GL, Tang JP, Carsen DD: Development of morphological and functional polarity in primary cultures of immature rat uterine epithelial cells. J Cell Biol. 1988, 107: 2409-2423. 10.1083/jcb.107.6.2409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs AL, Decker GL, Glasser SR, Julian J, Carsen DD: Vectorial secretion of prostaglandins by polarized rodent uterine epithelial cells. Endocrinology. 1990, 126: 2125-2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schatz F, Gordon RE, Lanfer N, Gurpide E: Culture of human endometiral cells under polarizing conditions. Differentiation. 1990, 42: 184-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mani SK, Decker GL, Glasser SR: Hormonal Responsiveness by immature rabbit uterine epithelial cells polarized in vitro. Endocrinology. 1991, 128: 1563-1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ailenberg M, Fritz IB: Control of levels of plasminogen activator activity secreted by sertoli cells maintained in a two-chamber assembly. Endocrinol. 1988, 122: 2613-2618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carson DD, Tang J-P, Julian J, Glasser SR: Vectorial secretion of proteoglycans by polarized rat uterine epithelial cells. J Cell Biol. 1988, 197: 2425-2434. 10.1083/jcb.107.6.2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chembard M, Verrier B, Gabrion J, Mauchamp J: Polarization of thyroid cells in culture: evidence for basolateral localization of the iodide "pump" and at the thyroid stimulating hormone receptor- adenly cyclase complex. J Cell Biol. 1983, 96: 1172-1177. 10.1083/jcb.96.4.1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hardley MA, Byers SW, Snarez-Quarez-Quian CA, Kleinman HA, Dym M: Extracellular matrix regulates sertoli cell differentiation, testicular cord formation, and germ cell development in vitro. J Cell Biol. 1985, 101: 1511-1522. 10.1083/jcb.101.4.1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollard JW, Plante C, King WT, Hansen PJ, Betteridge KJ, Suarez SS: Fertilizing capacity of bovine sperm may be maintained by binding of oviductal epithelial cells. Biol Reprod. 1991, 44: 102-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sidhu KS, Mate KE, Rodger JC: Sperm – oviduct epithelial cell monolayer co-culture: an in vitro model of sperm female tract interactions in a marsupial, the tamer wallaby (macropus engenii). J Reprod Fertil. 1988, 114: 55-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ellington JE, Jones AE, Davitt CM, Schneider CS, Brishois RS, Hiss GA, Wright RW: Human sperm function in co-culture with human, macaque or bovine oviduct epithelial cells monolayers. Hum Reprod. 1998, 13: 2797-2804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thouas GA, Korfiatis NA, French AJ, Jones GM, Trounson AO: Simplified technique for differential staining of inner cell mass and trophoectoderm cells of mouse and bovine blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2001, 3: 25-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bentin-Ley U, Horn T, Sjogren A, Sorensen S, Falck Larsen J, Hamberger L: Ultra structure of human blastocyst – endometrial interactions in vitro. J Reprod Fertil. 2000, 120: 337-350. 10.1530/reprod/120.2.337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bentin-Ley U, Sjogren , Nilsson L, Hamberger L, Larsen JF, Horn T: Presence of uterine pinopodes at the embryo – endometrial interface during human implantation. In vitro hum Reprod. 1999, 14: 515-520. 10.1093/humrep/14.2.515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arnold JT, Kaufman DG, Seppala M, Lessey BA: Endometrial stromal cells regulate epithelial cell growth in vitro: a new co-culture model. Hum Reprod. 2001, 16: 836-845. 10.1093/humrep/16.5.836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park DW, Choi DS, Ryu HS, Know HC, Joo H, Min CK: A well – defined in vitro three dimensional culture of human endometrium and its applicability to endometrial cancer invasion. Cancer Lett. 2003, 195: 185-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Classen-Linke I, Kusche M, Knauthe R, Beier HM: Establishment of a human endometrial cell culture system and characterization of its polarized hormone responsive epithelial cells. Cell Tissue Res. 1997, 287: 171-185. 10.1007/s004410050743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pollard JW, Xu KP, Porie R, King WA, Betteridge KJ: Influence of various oviductal epithelial cell culture systems on the development of early cleavage stage bovine embryos in vitro. Theriogenology. 1989, 31: 239-10.1016/0093-691X(89)90647-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ouhibi N, Hamidi J, Guillad J, Menezo Y: Co-culture of one cell mouse embryo on different cell support. Hum Reprod. 1990, 5: 737-743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentin-Ley U, Pederson B, Linderberg S, Larsen JB, Hamberger L, Horn T: Isolation and culture of human endometrial cells in a three – dimensional culture system. J Reprod Fertil. 1994, 101: 327-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vega Salas DE, salas PJ, Gunderson D, Rodriguez-Boulan E: Formation of the apical pole of epithelial (madin – Darby Canine Kidney) cells : Polarity of an apical protein is independent of tight junctions while segregation of a basolateral marker requires cell – cell interactions. J Cell Biol. 1987, 104: 905-916. 10.1083/jcb.104.4.905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Freeman MR, Bastias MC, Hill GA, Osteen KG: Co- culture of mouse embryos with cells isolated from the human ovarian follicle, oviduct and uterine endometrium. Fertil Steril. 1993, 59: 138-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boatman DE: In vitro growth of non-human primate pre- and peri-implantation embryos:Mammalian Preimplantation Embryo. Edited by: Bavister BD. 1987, New York: Plenum Press, 273-308.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schiewe MC, Hazeleger NI, Sclimenti C, Balmaceda JP: Physiological characterization of blastocyst hatching mechanisms by use of a mouse antihatching model. Fertil Steril. 1995, 63: 288-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Handyside AH, Hunter S: Cell division and death in the mouse blastocyst before implantation. Roux's Arech Dev Biol. 1986, 195: 519-526. 10.1007/BF00375893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hardy k, Handyside AH, Winston RM: The human blastocyst:cell number, death and allocation during late preimplantation development in vitro. Development. 1989, 107: 597-604.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sherban R, Frasor J, Radwanska E, Binor Z, Wood-molo M, Hibner M, Mack S, Rawlines RG: Comparison of mouse embryo development in open and micro drop Co- Culture systems. Hum Reprod. 1996, 11: 2223-2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thomas PG, Ignotz GG, Ball BA, Miller PG, Brinsko SP, Currie B: Isolation, Culture and characterization of equine oviduct epithelial cells in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev. 1995, 41: 468-478. 10.1002/mrd.1080410409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Woldesenbet S, Newton GR: Comparison of proteins synthesized by polarized caprine oviductal epithelial cells and oviductal explants in vitro. Theriogenology. 2003, 60: 533-543. 10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00036-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Nejad et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamad Reza Baghaban Eslami Nejad
    • 1
  • Mojtaba Rezazadeh Valojerdi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Saeed Kazemi Ashtiani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EmbryologyRoyan InstituteTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy, School of Medical SciencesTarbiat Modarres UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations