1
|
Teh WT, Chung J, Holdsworth-Carson SJ, Donoghue JF, Healey M, Rees HC, Bittinger S, Obers V, Sloggett C, Kendarsari R, Fung JN, Mortlock S, Montgomery GW, Girling JE, Rogers PAW. A molecular staging model for accurately dating the endometrial biopsy. Nat Commun 2023; 14:6222. [PMID: 37798294 PMCID: PMC10556104 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-41979-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Natural variability in menstrual cycle length, coupled with rapid changes in endometrial gene expression, makes it difficult to accurately define and compare different stages of the endometrial cycle. Here we develop and validate a method for precisely determining endometrial cycle stage based on global gene expression. Our 'molecular staging model' reveals significant and remarkably synchronised daily changes in expression for over 3400 endometrial genes throughout the cycle, with the most dramatic changes occurring during the secretory phase. Our study significantly extends existing data on the endometrial transcriptome, and for the first time enables identification of differentially expressed endometrial genes with increasing age and different ethnicities. It also allows reinterpretation of all endometrial RNA-seq and array data that has been published to date. Our molecular staging model will significantly advance understanding of endometrial-related disorders that affect nearly all women at some stage of their lives, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, adenomyosis, and recurrent implantation failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W T Teh
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne IVF, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - J Chung
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne Bioinformatics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - S J Holdsworth-Carson
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Julia Argyrou Endometriosis Centre, Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia
| | - J F Donoghue
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - M Healey
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - H C Rees
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - S Bittinger
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - V Obers
- Melbourne Pathology, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia
| | - C Sloggett
- Melbourne Bioinformatics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Microbiological Diagnostic Unit Public Health Laboratory, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - R Kendarsari
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- Illumina Inc. 11 Biopolis Way, Singapore, 138667, Singapore
| | - J N Fung
- School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - S Mortlock
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - G W Montgomery
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - J E Girling
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Anatomy, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa, New Zealand
| | - P A W Rogers
- University of Melbourne Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rozen G, Rogers P, Chander S, Anderson R, McNally O, Umstad M, Winship A, Hutt K, Teh WT, Dobrotwir A, Hart R, Ledger W, Stern K. Clinical summary guide: reproduction in women with previous abdominopelvic radiotherapy or total body irradiation. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020:hoaa045. [PMID: 33134561 PMCID: PMC7585646 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2020] [Revised: 08/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION What is the evidence to guide the management of women who wish to conceive following abdominopelvic radiotherapy (AP RT) or total body irradiation (TBI)? SUMMARY ANSWER Pregnancy is possible, even following higher doses of post-pubertal uterine radiation exposure; however, it is associated with adverse reproductive sequelae and pregnancies must be managed in a high-risk obstetric unit. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In addition to primary ovarian insufficiency, female survivors who are treated with AP RT and TBI are at risk of damage to the uterus. This may impact on its function and manifest as adverse reproductive sequelae. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION A review of the literature was carried out and a multidisciplinary working group provided expert opinion regarding assessment of the uterus and obstetric management. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS Reproductive outcomes for postpubertal women with uterine radiation exposure in the form of AP RT or TBI were reviewed. This included Pubmed listed peer-reviewed publications from 1990 to 2019, and limited to English language.. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The prepubertal uterus is much more vulnerable to the effects of radiation than after puberty. Almost all available information about the impact of radiation on the uterus comes from studies of radiation exposure during childhood or adolescence.An uncomplicated pregnancy is possible, even with doses as high as 54 Gy. Therefore, tumour treatment doses alone cannot at present be used to accurately predict uterine damage. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION Much of the data cannot be readily extrapolated to adult women who have had uterine radiation and the publications concerning adult women treated with AP RT are largely limited to case reports. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This analysis offers clinical guidance and assists with patient counselling. It is important to include patients who have undergone AP RT or TBI in prospective studies to provide further evidence regarding uterine function, pregnancy outcomes and correlation of imaging with clinical outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS This study received no funding and there are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Rozen
- Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne and Gynaecology Research Centre, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - P Rogers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne and Gynaecology Research Centre, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - S Chander
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - R Anderson
- University of Edinburgh, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health Queens Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, UK
| | - O McNally
- Royal Women's Hospital, Gynae-Oncology Unit, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - M Umstad
- Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne School of BioSciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - A Winship
- Development and Stem Cells Program, Monash University Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Clayton, VIC, Australia.,Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - K Hutt
- Development and Stem Cells Program, Monash University Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - W T Teh
- Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne and Gynaecology Research Centre, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - A Dobrotwir
- Royal Women's Hospital, Radiology, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - R Hart
- University of Western Australia, School of Womens and Infants Health University of Western Australia King Edward Memorial Hospital Subiaco, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - W Ledger
- University of New South Wales, School of Womens and Childrens Health Level 1, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - K Stern
- Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Donoghue JF, Paiva P, Teh WT, Cann LM, Nowell C, Rees H, Bittinger S, Obers V, Bulmer JN, Stern C, McBain J, Rogers PAW. Endometrial uNK cell counts do not predict successful implantation in an IVF population. Hum Reprod 2020; 34:2456-2466. [PMID: 31825483 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2019] [Revised: 08/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Are uterine natural killer (uNK) cell numbers and their distribution relative to endometrial arterioles altered in women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) compared to women with embryo implantation success (IS)? SUMMARY ANSWER uNK cell numbers and their distribution relative to endometrial arterioles are not significantly different in women with RIF compared to women in whom embryo implantation occurs successfully following IVF. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN uNK cells are regulators of decidual angiogenesis and spiral arteriole remodelling during early pregnancy. Although some studies have shown that uNK cell numbers may be altered in women with RIF, the methods used to measure uNK cell numbers have proven inconsistent, making reproduction of these results difficult. It is unclear, therefore, whether the results reported so far are reproducible. Moreover, it is not known how uNK cell numbers may impact IVF outcomes. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, uNK cell numbers are often evaluated as a prognostic criterion in women undergoing assisted reproductive procedures. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Endometrial pipelle biopsies were collected 6-8 days post-LH surge in natural cycles from women with RIF (n = 14), women with IS (n = 11) and women with potential RIF at the time of the study (PRIF; n = 9) from 2013 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS uNK cells (i.e. CD56+ and/or CD16+ phenotypes) and their distribution relative to endometrial arterioles were investigated by standard immunohistochemistry protocols and quantified using Aperio ScanScopeXT images digitized by ImageJ and deconvoluted into binary images for single cell quantification using a Gaussian Blur and Yen algorithm. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There was no significant difference in the cell density of CD56+ or CD16+ uNK cells in women with RIF compared to women with IS or PRIF. There was a higher proportion of uNK cells in the distal regions compared to the regions closest to the arterioles in all patient groups. Further, we identified a significant reduction in uNK cell density in women who had a previous pregnancy compared to those who had not, regardless of their current implantation status. LARGE SCALE DATA Not applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Spiral arterioles could not always be accurately identified by digital image analysis; therefore, all endometrial arterioles were selected and analysed. Patient numbers for the study were low. However, as the clinical phenotypes of each patient were well defined, and endometrial dating was accurately determined by three independent pathologists, differences between patient groups with respect to the uNK numbers and distribution should have been measurable if uNK cell counts were to be useful as a prognostic marker of RIF. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our findings demonstrate that CD56+ and CD16+ uNK cell numbers are not significantly different in women with RIF in a typical cohort of women undergoing IVF. Further, prior pregnancy was associated with a significantly reduced number of uNK cells in both the RIF and IS patient groups, suggestive of a long-term pregnancy induced suppression of uNK cells. Combined, these findings do not support the clinical value of using uNK cell numbers as a prognostic indicator of implantation success with IVF treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Funding for this work was provided by Royal Women's Hospital Foundation. P.P. was supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [TF 11/14] and W.T.T. was supported by an NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship [1055814]. The authors do not have any competing interests with this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J F Donoghue
- Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - P Paiva
- Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - W T Teh
- Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - L M Cann
- Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - C Nowell
- Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - H Rees
- Anatomical Pathology Department, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - S Bittinger
- Anatomical Pathology Department, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - V Obers
- Melbourne Pathology, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - J N Bulmer
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - C Stern
- Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - J McBain
- Reproductive Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.,Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - P A W Rogers
- Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|