Implantation Associated Changes in Uterine Secreted Proteins

  • Harry M. Weitlauf
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 230)


Cross sectional segments were removed from the uteri of pregnant and pseudopregnant mice and incubated in vitro with labeled amino acids. Proteins that were synthesized and secreted by these explants were separated by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and localized by fluorography. As expected, the overall amount of labeled protein secreted into the medium was greater with tissue removed from implantation sites, or an artificially induced deciduoma, than it was with tissue from non-decidualized areas. It was not possible, by means of visual examination of the gels, to determine whether qualitative changes occurred in the patterns proteins that were released. However, by means of dual label ratios, it was demonstrated that the synthesis and secretion of individual proteins was regulated differentially. Furthermore, it was found that when the stimulus for decidualization was a normal implanting embryo, the pattern of protein enhancement was different than it was with an intrauterine thread. The finding that the uterus can distinguish between these two deciduogenic stimuli implies that unique signal factors, which may be important for the establishment of pregnancy, are released by the mouse embryo before implantation.


Estrous Cycle Implantation Site Uterine Tissue Label Amino Acid Little Significant Difference Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. B. Heap, A. P. Flint, and J. G. Gadsby, Role of embryonic signals in the establishment of pregnancy, Br. Med. Bull. 35: 129–135 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. J. Sauer, Hormone Involvement in the Establishment of Pregnancy, J. Reprod. Fert. 76: 725–743 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. G. Kennedy, Embryonic signals and the initiation of blastocyst implantation, Australian J. Biol. 36: 531–543 (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. A. Masters, R. M. Roberts, G. S. Lewis, W. W. Thatcher, F. W. Bazer, and J. D. Godkin, High molecular weight glycoproteins released by expanding preattachment sheep, pig and cow blastocysts in culture, J. Reprod. Fert. 66: 571–583 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. W. Bazer, J. L. Vallet, R. M. Roberts, D. C. Sharp, and W. W. Thatcher, Role of Conceptus Secretory Products in Establishment of Pregnancy, J. Reprod. Fert. 76: 841–850 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. M. Moor and L. E. A. Rowson, Local uterine mechanisms affecting luteal function in the sheep, J. Reprod. Fert. 11: 307–310 (1966a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. M. Moor and L. E. A. Rowson, The corpus luteum of the sheep: effect of removal of the embryo on luteal function, J. Endocrin. 34: 497–502 (1966b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Martal, M-C Lacroix, C. Luides, M. Saunier, and S. Winterberger-Torres, Trophoblastin, an antiluteolytic protein present in early pregnancy in sheep, J. Reprod. Fert. 56: 63–73 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. D. Godkin, F. W. Bazer, J. Moffatt, F. Sessions, and R. M. Roberts, Purification and properties of a low molecular weight protein released by the trophoblast of sheep blastocysts at day 13–21, J. Reprod. Fert. 65: 141–150 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. D. Godkin, F. W. Bazer, and R. M. Roberts, Ovine trophoblast protein 1, an early secreted blastocyst protein, binds specifically to uterine endometrium and affects protein synthesis, Endocrinology 114: 120–130 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. D. Godkin, F. W. Bazer, W. W. Thatcher, and R. M. Roberts, Proteins released by cultured day 15–16 conceptuses prolong luteal maintenance when introduced into the uterine lumen of cyclic ewes, J. Reprod. Fert. 71: 57–64 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. F. Bartol, R. M. Roberts, F. W. Bazer, G. S. Lewis, J. D. Godkin, and W. W. Thatcher, Characterization of proteins produced in vitro by preattachment bovine conceptuses, Biol. Reprod. 32: 681–693 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. W. Thatcher, J. J. Knickerbocker, F. F. Bartol, F. W, Bazer, R. M. Roberts, and M. Drost, Maternal recognition of pregnancy in relation to the survival of transferred embryos: endocrine aspects, Theriogenology 23: 129–144 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. D. Godkin, F. W. Bazer, G. S. Lewis, R. D. Geisert, and R. H. Roberts, Synthesis and release of polypeptides by pig conceptuses during the period of blastocyst elongation and attachment, Biol. Reprod. 27: 977–987 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. L. Nieder, H. M. Weitlauf, and M. Suda-Hartman, Synthesis and secretion of stage specific proteins by peri-implantation mouse embryos, Biol. Reprod. (in press 1987).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. E. Fowler and R. G. Edwards, Induction of superovulation and pregnancy in mature mice by gonadotropins, J. Endocrinol. 15: 374–384 (1957).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. L. Brinster, In vitro culture of the embryo, in: “Pathways to conception; the role of the cervix and oviduct in reproduction,” A. I. Shermen, ed., Charles C.. Thomas, Springfield, II., pp. 245–277 (1971).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. H. Lowry, M. J. Rosenbrough, A. L. Farr, and R. J. Randall, Protein measurement with the Folin Phenol reagent, J. Biol. Chem. 93: 265–275 (1951).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. H. O’Farrel, High resolution two-dimensional electrophoresis of proteins, J. Biol. Chem. 250: 4007–4021 (1975).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. G. Anderson and N. L. Anderson, Analytical techniques for cell fractions XXI. Two dimensional analysis of serum and tissue proteins: multiple isoelectric focusing, Anal. Biochem. 85: 331–340 (1978a).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. L. Anderson and N. G. Anderson, Analytical techniques for cell fractions XXII. Two dimensional analysis of serum and tissue proteins: multiple gradient-slab gel electrophoresis, Anal. Biochem. 85: 341–354 (1978b).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. L. Brinster, S. Brunner, J. Xavier, and I. L. Levey, Protein degradation in the mouse blastocyst, J. Biol. Chem. 254: 1927–1931 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Y. Chen, R. L. Brinster, and E. A. Merz, Changes in protein synthesis following fertilization of the mouse ovum, J. Exp. Zool. 212: 355–360 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. E. Kirk, “Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences,” Brooks/Cole Publishing, Belmont, pp. 87–88; 99–108 (1968).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Keppel, “Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook,” Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, pp. 23–42 (1982).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. J. Reid and P. J. Heald, Uptake of H-leucine into proteins of rat uterus during early pregnancy, Biochem. Biophys. Acta 204: 278–279 (1970).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. J. Reid and P. J. Heald, Protein metabolism of the rat uterus during the oestrus cycle, pregnancy and pseudopregnancy, and as affected by anti-implantation compound ICI 46,474, J. Reprod. Fert. 27: 73–82 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. E. Quarmby and K. S. Korach, Differential regulation of protein synthesis by estradiol in uterine compound tissues, Endocrinology 115: 687–697 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. B. Renfree, Influence of the embryo on the Marsupial uterus, Nature 240: 475–477 (1972).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. M. M. Basha, F. W. Bazer, and R, M. Roberts, Effect of the conceptus on quantitative and qualitative aspects of uterine secretion in pigs, J. Reprod. Fert. 60: 41–48 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. D. Geisert, W. W. Thatcher, R. M. Roberts, and F. W, Bazer, Establishment of pregnancy in the pig; III Endometrial secretory response to estradiol valorate administered on day 11 of the estrous cycle, Biol. Reprod. 27: 957–965 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. D. Geisert, R. H. Renegar, W. W. Thatcher, R. M. Roberts, and F- W. Bazer, Establishment of pregnancy in the pig: I Interrelationships between preimplantation development of the pig blastocyst and uterine endometrial secretions, Biol. Reprod. 27: 925–939 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. A. Salamonsen, B. W. Doughton, and J. K. Findlay, The effects of the preimplantation balstocyst in vivo and in vitro on protein synthesis and secretion by cultured epithelial cells from sheep endometrium, Endocrinology 119: 622–628 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry M. Weitlauf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cell Biology and AnatomyTexas Tech University Health Sciences CenterLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations