| Literature DB >> 11495634 |
Susan M Adams1, Nalini Gayer, Vera Terry, Christopher R Murphy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manipulation of the follicular phase uterine epithelium in women undergoing infertility treatment, has not generally shown differing morphological effects on uterine epithelial characteristics using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and resultant pregnancy rates have remained suboptimal utilising these manipulations. The present study observed manipulation of the proliferative epithelium, with either 7 or 14 days of sequential oestrogen (E) therapy followed by progesterone (P) and assessed the appearance of pinopods (now called uterodomes) for their usefulness as potential implantation markers in seven women who subsequently became pregnant. Three endometrial biopsies per patient were taken during consecutive cycles: day 19 of a natural cycle - (group 1), days 11/12 of a second cycle after 7 days E then P - (group 2), and days 19/22 of a third cycle after 14 days E then P - (group 3). Embryo transfer (ET) was performed in a subsequent long treatment cycle (as per Group 3).Entities:
Year: 2001 PMID: 11495634 PMCID: PMC37312 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-1-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Figure 1Scanning electron micrographs of 3 biopsies from the same patient (no. 5) demonstrates the variable response of the epithelium to exogenous hormone supplementation. (A) suboptimal epithelial appearance for D5 natural cycle displaying variable morphology of flattened, pleiomorphic cells without cell borders, variable microvilli coverage and structure and few cilia groups. (B) D5 of the short E2 cycle shows an abundance of fully developed uterodomes, (C) D7 of long E2 cycle shows developing uterodomes. Scale bar = 10 μm.
'Stages of uterodome development (0=absent, 1=developing, 2=developed, 3=regressing) and uterodome abundance (+ = few, ++ = moderate, +++ = abundant, N/A = no epithelium) in consecutive cycles in 7 patients who subsequently became pregnant.
| Patient | Biopsy I (Day 5) | Biopsy 2 (Day 5) | Biopsy 3 (Day 5) |
| 1 | 2 +++ | N/A | 0(D8) |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 + |
| 3 | N/A | 1 (D4) + | 0 (D8) |
| 4 | 2 + | 1 (D4) ++ | 2 + |
| 5 | 0 | 2 +++ | 1 (D7) +++ |
| 6 | 0 | 1 + | 1 +++ |
| 7 | 2 + | 2 +++ | 1 +++ |
Figure 2Scanning electron micrographs of the same patient (no. 1) demonstrates a shift in the nidation window with exogenous hormones. (A) An abundance of fully developed uterodomes are shown on D5 of the natural cycle. (B) D8 long E2 shows retarded epithelium suggestive of pinopod appearance 1-2 days later. Note clumping of swollen microvillous tips on protruding cells and secretory droplets. Scale bar = 10 μm.
Figure 3Scanning electron micrographs from the same patient (no. 7) at D5 in different cycles demonstrated an increase in abundance of uterodomes utilising exogenous hormones. Scale bar = 10 μm. (A) Epithelium displaying few uterodomes in the natural cycle (B) An increase in abundance of uterodomes after hormone supplementation is observed.