Evaluation of serum autoantibody levels in the diagnosis of ovarian endometrioma

Ligustrazine inhibits inflammatory response of human endometrial stromal cells through the STAT3/IGF2BP1/RELA axis

CONTEXT

Endometriosis (EMs) is a gynecological disorder. Ligustrazine has been reported to exert an anti-inflammatory effect on EMs. However, the underlying mechanisms are not completely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of ligustrazine on the progression of EMs and the underlying regulatory mechanisms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Human endometrial stromal cells (HESCs) were isolated from patients with EMs or control subjects. HESCs were treated with 25, 50, 100, or 200 μM ligustrazine for 1, 3, 6, or 12 h. Western blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were performed to determine the levels of proteins and inflammatory cytokines, respectively. The binding between STAT3 and insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 1 (IGF2BP1) was assessed by chromatin immunoprecipitation and dual-luciferase reporter assays. The relationship between IGF2BP1 and RELA was assessed by RNA immunoprecipitation and RNA pull-down assay.

RESULTS

Phosphorylated STAT3, IGF2BP1, RELA, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β were upregulated in EMs tissues compared with control tissues (by 1.79-, 2.55-, 1.58-, 3.01-, 2.55-, and 3.34-fold, respectively). Ligustrazine inhibited the expression of p-STAT3, IGF2BP1, RELA, IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-1β. Overexpression of STAT3 promoted RELA-mediated inflammatory responses, while ligustrazine (100 µM) notably reversed this phenomenon. Ligustrazine also alleviated RELA-induced inflammation via downregulating IGF2BP1. STAT3 bound to the promoter of IGF2BP1, and IGF2BP1 bound to the RELA mRNA.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Ligustrazine inhibited inflammation in EMs via regulating the STAT3/IGF2BP1/RELA axis. These findings propose a new agent against EMs and support the development of ligustrazine-based treatment strategies for EMs.

FoxA2 represses ERβ-mediated pyroptosis in endometriosis by transcriptionally inhibiting IGF2BP1

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a severe disease which is associated with excessive activation of pyroptosis. Our present research aimed to investigate the function of Forkhead Box A2 (FoxA2) in regulating pyroptosis in endometriosis.

METHODS

IL-1β and IL-18 concentrations were assessed using ELISA. Cell pyroptosis was analyzed using flow cytometry. TUNEL staining was performed to determine human endometrial stromal cells (HESC) death. Moreover, ERβ mRNA stability was assessed using RNA degradation assay. Finally, the binding relationships between FoxA2, IGF2BP1 and ERβ were verified by dual-luciferase reporter system, ChIP, RIP and RNA pull-down assays.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that IGF2BP1 and ERβ were significantly upregulated in ectopic endometrium (EC) tissues of endometriosis patients compared to that in eutopic endometrium (EU) tissues as well as IL-18 and IL-1β levels. Loss-of-function experiments subsequently demonstrated that either IGF2BP1 knockdown or ERβ knockdown could repress HESC pyroptosis. In addition, IGF2BP1 upregulation promoted the pyroptosis in endometriosis by binding to ERβ and promoting ERβ mRNA stability. Our further research displayed that FoxA2 upregulation suppressed HESC pyroptosis by interacting with IGF2BP1 promoter.

CONCLUSION

Our research proved that FoxA2 upregulation downregulated ERβ by transcriptionally inhibiting IGF2BP1, thereby repressing pyroptosis in endometriosis.

Endometriosis and inflammatory immune responses: Indian experience

Endometriosis is a public health disorder affecting ∼ 247 million women globally and ∼ 42 million women in India. Women with endometriosis suffer from dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, dyschezia, fatigue, depression, and infertility leading to significant socioeconomic impact and morbidity. The etiology of endometriosis is not understood well even after 100 years of research. Currently, there is no permanent cure for endometriosis. The inflammatory immune response is one of the important features of etiopathogenesis of endometriosis and therefore understanding the inflammatory immune response would lead to a better understanding of this enigmatic disorder and may also lead to biomarker discovery for diagnosis of endometriosis. We investigated the autoimmune etiology of endometriosis in the Indian population. Using the proteomics approach, anti-endometrial antibodies (AEAs) were detected in Indian women with endometriosis [anti-endometrial antibodies - tropomyosin 3 (TPM3), stomatin-like protein2 (SLP-2), and tropomodulin 3 (TMOD3)]. The studies on AEAs provided a better understanding of autoimmune mechanisms in endometriosis. All three subtypes of endometriosis; superficial peritoneal, ovarian endometrioma, and deep infiltrating endometriosis were reported in Indian women. In this review, we discuss our experiences of the inflammatory immune response, autoimmunity, comorbidities, and clinical phenotypes in women with endometriosis in India.

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Early and accurate diagnosis of endometriosis is crucial for the management of this benign, yet debilitating pathology. Despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no common ground regarding the pathophysiology of this disease as it continues to affect the quality of life of millions of women of reproductive age. The lack of specific symptoms often determines a belated diagnosis. The gold standard remains invasive, surgery followed by a histopathological exam. A biomarker or a panel of biomarkers is easy to measure, usually noninvasive, and could benefit the clinician in both diagnosing and monitoring the treatment response. Several studies have advanced the idea of biomarkers for endometriosis, thereby circumventing unnecessary invasive techniques. Our paper aims at harmonizing the results of these studies in the search of promising perspectives on early diagnosis.

METHODS

We selected the papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef and reviewed recent articles from the literature, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of various putative serum and urinary biomarkers for endometriosis.

RESULTS

The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are needed.

Challenges in uncovering non-invasive biomarkers of endometriosis

Endometriosis affects up to 10% of women of childbearing age, causing symptoms that can include chronic pelvic pain and reduced fertility. The symptoms are not specific to the disease and can be confused with other gynecological conditions or normal menstruation. Currently, the disease can be only definitively diagnosed by laparoscopy, as no clinically accepted biomarker exists. Biomarker discovery can either follow a hypothesis-driven approach selecting targets to be tested based on current knowledge of the disease, or take an unbiased high-throughput screening “omics” approach, such as transcriptomics or proteomics, to identify markers that are unique or elevated in accessible bodily fluids of patients with the disease. Numerous studies have been conducted using these approaches to try and identify endometriosis biomarkers, but variabilities in study design, cohort selection, and analysis, together with the fact that most studies were small-scale, have made independent validation of biomarker candidates difficult. Therefore, efforts are underway to standardize cohort selection, patient data, and sample collection to allow better cross-study comparisons. Large scale multi-center studies using this standardized approach are necessary to validate existing endometriosis biomarker candidates and uncover potential new markers. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease, it is likely that a panel of biomarkers will be necessary to diagnose and categorize endometriosis.

Biomarkers for diagnosis of pre-eclampsia and endometriosis

Gynecological disorders are leading public health problems in developing countries with substantial impact on women's quality of life. Significant proportion of maternal mortality and reproductive morbidity is attributed to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of pregnancy related lethal pathological conditions and affect women's health. Timely diagnosis is necessary to prevent maternal deaths and to manage complications. Biomarker development will create a wide window of opportunity for early diagnosis. This review discusses the current status of biomarkers and recent advances in 'omics' technology for early screening of endometriosis and pre-eclampsia because of significant global bioburden associated with these disorders. This review will also give baseline data for future biomarker development strategies.

Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive or minimally invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. Although other reviews have assessed the ability of blood tests to diagnose endometriosis, this is the first review to use Cochrane methods, providing an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate blood biomarkers as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests to inform decisions on surgery for endometriosis. Specific objectives include:1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of peritoneal, ovarian and deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis, compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.2. To assess the diagnostic utility of biomarkers that could differentiate ovarian endometrioma from other ovarian masses.

SEARCH METHODS

We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as these databases to 20 April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more blood biomarkers with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of data from each study. For each diagnostic test, we classified the data as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis, and we calculated sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient datasets were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful blood test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of ≥ 0.95 and a specificity of ≥ 0.50, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of ≥ 0.50 and a specificity of ≥ 0.95, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 141 studies that involved 15,141 participants and evaluated 122 blood biomarkers. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Studies evaluated the blood biomarkers either in a specific phase of the menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase, and they tested for them in serum, plasma or whole blood. Included women were a selected population with a high frequency of endometriosis (10% to 85%), in which surgery was indicated for endometriosis, infertility work-up or ovarian mass. Seventy studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 47 blood biomarkers for endometriosis (44 single-marker tests and 30 combined tests of two to six blood biomarkers). These were angiogenesis/growth factors, apoptosis markers, cell adhesion molecules, high-throughput markers, hormonal markers, immune system/inflammatory markers, oxidative stress markers, microRNAs, tumour markers and other proteins. Most of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies, often using different cut-off thresholds, and we could only perform meta-analyses on the data sets for anti-endometrial antibodies, interleukin-6 (IL-6), cancer antigen-19.9 (CA-19.9) and CA-125. Diagnostic estimates varied significantly between studies for each of these biomarkers, and CA-125 was the only marker with sufficient data to reliably assess sources of heterogeneity.The mean sensitivities and specificities of anti-endometrial antibodies (4 studies, 759 women) were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.00). For IL-6, with a cut-off value of > 1.90 to 2.00 pg/ml (3 studies, 309 women), sensitivity was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.75) and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.82). For CA-19.9, with a cut-off value of > 37.0 IU/ml (3 studies, 330 women), sensitivity was 0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99).Studies assessed CA-125 at different thresholds, demonstrating the following mean sensitivities and specificities: for cut-off > 10.0 to 14.7 U/ml: 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.82); for cut-off > 16.0 to 17.6 U/ml: 0.56 (95% CI 0.24, 0.88) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.75, 1.00); for cut-off > 20.0 U/ml: 0.67 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80); for cut-off > 25.0 to 26.0 U/ml: 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77); for cut-off > 30.0 to 33.0 U/ml: 0.62 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.00); and for cut-off > 35.0 to 36.0 U/ml: 0.40 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.49) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.94).We could not statistically evaluate other biomarkers meaningfully, including biomarkers that were assessed for their ability to differentiate endometrioma from other benign ovarian cysts.Eighty-two studies evaluated 97 biomarkers that did not differentiate women with endometriosis from disease-free controls. Of these, 22 biomarkers demonstrated conflicting results, with some studies showing differential expression and others no evidence of a difference between the endometriosis and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the biomarkers that were subjected to meta-analysis, none consistently met the criteria for a replacement or triage diagnostic test. A subset of blood biomarkers could prove useful either for detecting pelvic endometriosis or for differentiating ovarian endometrioma from other benign ovarian masses, but there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions. Overall, none of the biomarkers displayed enough accuracy to be used clinically outside a research setting. We also identified blood biomarkers that demonstrated no diagnostic value in endometriosis and recommend focusing research resources on evaluating other more clinically useful biomarkers.

Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis

Endometriosis is histologically characterized by the displacement of endometrial tissue to extrauterine locations including the pelvic peritoneum, ovaries, and bowel. An important cause of infertility and pelvic pain, the individual and global socioeconomic burden of endometriosis is significant. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of the condition. However, the invasive nature of surgery, coupled with the lack of a laboratory biomarker for the disease, results in a mean latency of 7–11 years from onset of symptoms to definitive diagnosis. Unfortunately, the delay in diagnosis may have significant consequences in terms of disease progression. The discovery of a sufficiently sensitive and specific biomarker for the nonsurgical detection of endometriosis promises earlier diagnosis and prevention of deleterious sequelae and represents a clear research priority. In this review, we describe and discuss the current status of biomarkers of endometriosis in plasma, urine, and endometrium.

Noninvasive biomarkers of endometriosis: myth or reality?

Endometriosis affects 10% of premenopausal women and 35-50% of women with infertility, pelvic pain, or both. At present, endometriosis can only be diagnosed with surgery, where laparoscopy is considered a gold standard. Noninvasive biomarkers are thus urgently needed. In 2010, the peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis were systematically reviewed by May et al. However, with the introduction of '-omics' technologies, we have witnessed immense progress in biomarker discovery, which now calls for an overview of recent studies. This report looks at potential blood and urine biomarkers of endometriosis published in the last 3 years. The current status of noninvasive diagnostic biomarkers of endometriosis is discussed, with the limitations of these studies identified and recommendations for future biomarker discovery provided.