| Literature DB >> 35663305 |
Caiyi Huang1,2,3,4,5, Qian Zhang3,4,5, Tianxiang Ni3,4,5, Tingting Zhou3,4,5, Chunzi Lv3,4,5, Yan Li3,4,5, Junhao Yan3,4,5, Zi-Jiang Chen1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a disease associated with endometrial receptivity dysfunction. Retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARα) is an important protein in many biological processes, such as differentiation and development. However, the exact underlying mechanism whereby RARα affects RIF remains unknown. This study investigated RARα expression and its contribution in the mid-luteal phase endometria of patients with RIF.Entities:
Keywords: CEBPB; RARα; decidualization; endometria stromal cells; recurrent implantation failure (RIF)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35663305 PMCID: PMC9161677 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.753416
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
The basal characteristic of control group and RIF patients.
| Control (n=13) | RIF (n=19) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 31.38 ± 5.19 | 34.21 ± 3.89 | 0.088 |
| BMI (cm/kg2) | 24.16 ± 4.14 | 22.47 ± 2.99 | 0.104 |
| Basic FSH(IU/L) | 6.68 ± 1.06 | 6.88 ± 1.14 | 0.623 |
| Basic LH (IU/L) | 5.34 ± 2.11 | 5.89 ± 3.89 | 0.642 |
| Right AFC(n) | 7.31 ± 3.04 | 10.00 ± 6.79 | 0.192 |
| Left AFC(n) | 8.00 ± 3.24 | 8.58 ± 4.87 | 0.710 |
All data are showed as mean ± SD; the comparation of two group (Control/RIF) were used Student’s t-test.
Figure 1Expression of RARα in endometrium of patients with RIF. (A) RARα mRNA expression in RIF (n=19) and normal women (n=13). (B) Representative Western blot and quantification of RARα levels in RIF (n=3) and control patients (n=3). (C) Localization of RARα in endometrium of patients with RIF (n=12) and normal women (n=11) (Scale bar, left: 50μm, right: 25μm). Protein and mRNA expression levels are normalized to GAPDH expression. The comparison of RIF and normal group in IHC were used H-score. All data are showed as mean ± SEM. The statistic difference between two groups was determined by Student’s t-test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2Stimulation of decidualization in T-HESCs. (A) PRL and IGFBP-1 mRNA expression of T-HESCs after 4-days induction of decidualization with cAMP and MPA. (B) The RARα expression after 4-days induction of decidualization with cAMP and MPA. Expression of mRNA and protein levels are normalized to GAPDH expression. All data are showed as mean ± SEM. The statistic difference between two groups was determined by Student’s t-test, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 3(A) Morphology of T-ESCs after 4-days stimulation of decidualization with cAMP and MPA (Scale bar, left: 100μm). (B) Cellular morphology of decidualized T-HESCs with RARα knockdown (Scale bar, left: 100μm). (C) Cellular morphology of decidualized T-HESCs with RARα knockdown and C/EBPβ over-expression (Scale bar, left: 100μm).
Figure 4RARα knockdown and RARα overexpression in decidualized T-HESCs. (A) PRL, IGFBP1 mRNA expression level in T-HESCs with RARα knockdown. (B) PRL, IGFBP1 mRNA expression level in T-HESCs with RARα overexpression. Expression levels of mRNA are normalized to GAPDH expression. All data are shown as means ± SEMs. Statistically significant differences between two groups were determined by Student’s t-test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 5RARα knockdown downregulated C/EBPβ expression and restoration of C/EBPβ expression rescued the suppressed decidualization of T-HESCs with RARα knockdown.in decidualized T-HESCs. (A) Results of predicted protein–protein interactions between critical proteins during decidualization. (B) C/EBPβ mRNA expression levels in RARα-knockdown decidualized T-HESCs. (C) C/EBPβ protein expression levels in RARα-knockdown decidualized T-HESCs. (D) PRL and IGFBP-1 mRNA expression after overexpressing C/EBPβ in decidualization of T-HESCs with RARα knockdown. Protein and mRNA expression levels are normalized to GAPDH expression. All data are shown as means ± SEMs. Statistically significant differences between two groups were determined by Student’s t-test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 6RARα directly regulated CEBPB transcription in decidualized T-HESCs. (A) In silico (JASPAR)-predicted binding site between RARα and the CEBPB upstream -2200 promoter region. (B) Results of ChIP experiment performed in decidualized T-HESCs. (C) C/EBPβ mRNA expression levels in RARα-knockdown T-HESCs absent MPA and cAMP. (D) Results of ChIP experiment performed in T-HESCs absent MPA and cAMP. (E) Result of luciferase reported assay for mutation of predicted binding site (-2,009/-1,781) in the CEBPB promoter. Chromatin was immunoprecipitated with anti- RARα. ChIP-qPCR results are normalized to the input DNA. Expression of mRNA levels are normalized to GAPDH expression. Firefly/Renilla fluorescence ratios were calculated to determine the promoter activity. All data are shown as means ± SEMs. Statistically significant differences between two groups were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 7Expression of C/EBPβ in endometrium of patients with RIF. (A) C/EBPβ mRNA expression in RIF (n=14) and normal women (n=13). (B) Representative Western blot and quantification of C/EBPβ in RIF (n=3) and normal women (n=3). (C) Localization of C/EBPβ in endometrium of RIF patients(n=12) and normal women (n=11) (Scale bar, left: 50μm, right: 25μm). The comparison of RIF and normal group in IHC were used H-score. All data are showed as mean ± SEM. The statistic difference between two groups was determined by Student’s t-test, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.