Decreased serum nesfatin-1 levels in endometriosis

Follicular Fluid and Blood Monitorization of Infertility Biomarkers in Women with Endometriosis

Infertility is recognized globally as a social disease and a growing medical condition, posing a significant challenge to modern reproductive health. Endometriosis, the third-most frequent gynecologic disorder, is one of the most common and intricate conditions that can lead to female infertility. Despite extensive research, the etiology, malignant transformation, and biological therapy of endometriosis remain unknown. Blood and follicular fluid are two matrices that have been carefully studied and can provide insights into women's health. These matrices are clinically significant because they contain metabolites closely associated with women's illness stage and reproductive outcomes. Nowadays, the application of metabolomic analysis in biological matrices may be able to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies with greater precision. From a molecular viewpoint on reproductive health, we evaluate and compare the utilization of human follicular fluid and blood as matrices in analysis for diagnostic and assisted reproductive technology (ART) predictors of success for endometriosis patients. In the follicular fluid (FF), plasma, and serum of endometriosis-affected women, researchers identified dysregulations of oxidative stress, upregulation of several immune factors, and aberrations in energy metabolic pathways. The altered signatures negatively correlate with the overall oocyte and embryo quality and fertilization rate.

Endometriosis and adverse pregnancy outcome

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is a gynecologic disease affecting approximately 10% of reproductive age women, around 21-47% of women presenting subfertility and 71-87% of women with chronic pelvic pain. Main symptoms are chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and infertility that seem to be well controlled by oral contraceptive pill, progestogens, GnRh antagonists. The aim of this review was to illustrate the modern diagnosis of endometriosis during pregnancy, to evaluate the evolution of endometriotic lesions during pregnancy and the incidence of adverse outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Published literature was retrieved through searches of the database PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA). We searched for all original articles published in English through April 2020 and decided to extract every notable information for potential inclusion in this review. The search included the following MeSH search terms, alone or in combination: "endometriosis" combined with "endometrioma," "biomarkers," "complications," "bowel," "urinary tract," "uterine rupture," "spontaneous hemoperitoneum in pregnancy" and more "adverse pregnancy outcome," "preterm birth," "miscarriage," "abruption placentae," "placenta previa," "hypertensive disorder," "preeclampsia," "fetal grow restriction," "small for gestation age," "cesarean delivery."

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Pregnancy in women with endometriosis does not always lead to disappearance of symptoms and decrease in the size of endometriotic lesions, but it may be possible to observe a malignant transformation of ovarian endometriotic lesions. Onset of complications may be caused by many factors: chronic inflammation, adhesions, progesterone resistance and a dysregulation of genes involved in the embryo implantation. As results, the pregnancy can be more difficult because of endometriosis related complications (spontaneous hemoperitoneum [SH], bowel complications, etc.) or adverse outcomes like preterm birth, FGR, hypertensive disorders, obstetrics hemorrhages (placenta previa, abruptio placenta), miscarriage or cesarean section. Due to insufficient knowledge about its pathogenesis, currently literature data are contradictory and do not show a strong correlation between endometriosis and these complications except for miscarriage and cesarean delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on the potential biological pathways underlying these relationships in order to inform patients planning a birth about possible complications during pregnancy.

A comparative account of nesfatin-1 in vertebrates

Nesfatin-1 was discovered as an anorexigenic peptide derived from proteolytic cleavage of the prepropeptide, nucleobindin 2 (NUCB2). It is widely expressed in central as well as peripheral tissues and is known to have pleiotropic effects such as regulation of feeding, reproduction, cardiovascular functions and maintenance of glucose homeostasis. In order to execute its multifaceted role, nesfatin-1 employs diverse signaling pathways though its receptor has not been identified till date. Further, nesfatin-1 is reported to be under the regulatory effect of feeding state, nutritional status as well as several metabolic and reproductive hormones. This peptide has also been associated with variety of human diseases, especially metabolic, reproductive, cardiovascular and mental disorders. The current review is aimed to present a consolidated picture and highlight lacunae for further investigation in order to develop a deeper comprehensive understanding on physiological significance of nesfatin-1 in vertebrates.

The role of adropin, salusin-α, netrin-1, and nesfatin-1 in endometriosis and their association with insulin resistance

Objective:

The pathogenesis of endometriosis has not been clearly explained. Inflammatory factors of ectopic implantation and the growth of ectopic endometrial cells have been subjects of major interest. The number of studies evaluating salusin-α and nesfatin-1 markers in patients with endometriosis is limited. No studies have evaluated the levels of anti-inflammatory markers for adropin and netrin-1 in patients with endometriosis. This study investigates how some important inflammatory regulatory markers in the inflammatory process affect the pathogenesis of endometriosis and determines whether any relationship exists between serum levels of these parameters and endometriosis and insulin resistance.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective study included 73 patients with endometriosis diagnosed histopathologically after laparoscopic surgery and 75 healthy controls. Serum adropin, salusin-α, netrin-1, and nesfatin-1 levels and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) values of the participants were measured.

Results:

The endometriosis group had significantly lower nesfatin-1 levels than the control group (3.0±0.53 vs 9.5±0.94, p=0.005). Between the patient and control groups, there was no difference regarding serum adropin, salusin-α, and netrin-1 levels (p=0.36, p=0.34, p=0.75, respectively). Nesfatin-1 had a significant positive correlation with adropin, salusin-α, and netrin-1 (r=0.563, p<0.01; r=0.738, p<0.01; r=0.700, p<0.01, respectively), but had a negative correlation with fasting blood glucose (r=−0.343, p<0.05). HOMA-IR values were comparable between both groups.

Conclusion:

The lower nesfatin-1 levels leading to increased inflammatory pathway activity in patients with endometriosis might play a role in endometriosis pathogenesis. Without causing systemic insulin resistance, decreased nesfatin-1 might contribute to endometriosis pathogenesis locally by leading to the reduced insulin susceptibility of endometriosis cells.

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.

Nesfatin-1/Nucleobindin-2 enhances cell migration, invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition via LKB1/AMPK/TORC1/ZEB1 pathways in colon cancer

Recent studies indicate that a high level of nesfatin-1/Nucleobindin-2 (NUCB-2) is associated with poor outcome and promotes cell migration in breast cancer and prostate cancer. However, the role of NUCB2 is not well known in colon cancer. In this study, NUCB-2 level in colon cancer tissue was higher than that in non-tumor tissue. Suppression of NUCB-2 in a colon cancer cell line SW620 inhibited migration and invasion. The microarray analysis showed that low expression level of transcription factor ZEB1 in NUCB-2 knockdowned SW620 cells. In addition, expression level of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related molecules including N-cadherin, E-cadherin, β-catenin, Slug and Twist was affected by NUCB-2 suppression and ZEB1-denepdent pathway. The signaling pathway liver kinase B1(LKB1)/AMP-dependent protein kinase (AMPK)/target of rapamycin complex (TORC) 1 was involved in regulation of NUCB-2-mediated metastasis and EMT properties. Suppression of NUCB-2 inhibited tumor nodules formation in a murine colon tumor model as well. In summary, nesfatin-1/NUCB-2 enhanced migration, invasion and EMT in colon cancer cells through LKB1/AMPK/TORC1/ZEB1 pathways in vitro and in vivo.

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.