Receptivity markers in endometrial mesenchymal stem cells of recurrent implantation failure and non‐recurrent implantation failure women: A pilot study

Aim Endometrial mesenchymal stem cells (eMSC) have a vital role in regeneration of endometrium during menstrual cycles. Since it has been suggested that (eMSC) likely play a role in uterine receptivity and establishment of pregnancy, we aimed to evaluate the expression levels of five most known rece...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research 2020-08, Vol.46 (8), p.1393-1402
Main Authors: Esmaeilzadeh, Sedighe, Mohammadi, Akbar, Mahdinejad, Neda, Ghofrani, Faezeh, Ghasemzadeh‐Hasankolaei, Mohammad
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adipocytes
Endometrium
Implantation
in vitro
menstrual blood mesenchymal stem cells
Menstruation
Mesenchymal stem cells
Noggin protein
Osteocytes
Physical characteristics
Polymerase chain reaction
Pregnancy
Rac1 protein
receptivity markers
recurrent implantation failure
Reverse transcription
Statistical analysis
Stem cells
Uterus
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim Endometrial mesenchymal stem cells (eMSC) have a vital role in regeneration of endometrium during menstrual cycles. Since it has been suggested that (eMSC) likely play a role in uterine receptivity and establishment of pregnancy, we aimed to evaluate the expression levels of five most known receptivity markers‐Integrin (ITG) β1, Rac1, HoxA11, ITGβ3 and Noggin‐in eMSC of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and non‐RIF women. Methods Human eMSC were isolated from menstrual blood (MB) of RIF and non‐RIF women. The isolated eMSC characterized based on their morphological and behavioral characteristics, expression of MSC‐specific surface CD markers and their capacity of differentiation into osteocytes and adipocytes. The expression levels of the five mentioned receptivity markers were analyzed with real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Results Our findings revealed that RIF and non‐RIF eMSC expressed all tested genes at different levels. ITGb1 expression in RIF eMSC was lower than its expression in non‐RIF cells. On the other hand, all the other markers were expressed at higher levels in RIF eMSC than in non‐RIF cells although only HOXA11 and ITG β3 showed statistically significant (P
ISSN:1341-8076
1447-0756
DOI:10.1111/jog.14340