Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 3, 787-792,
March 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles
1 Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College School of Science, Technology and Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, DuCane Road, London W12 ONN, UK, 2 The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia 23507-1627 USA
The formation of endometrial pinopodes detected by scanning electron microscopy may be a specific marker for uterine receptivity. Aiming to assess the effects of ovarian stimulation on pinopode formation, we examined sequential endometrial biopsies from 17 oocyte donors. Seven normally menstruating women served as controls. Up to four samples were taken from each woman at 24–72 h intervals between days 14 and 24, giving a total of 69 samples. The day of oocyte retrieval was designated day 14 in ovarian stimulation cycles and the day of luteinizing hormone surge was designated day 13 in natural cycles. Endometrial morphology and pinopode numbers were similar in both groups. Fully developed pinopodes appeared in only one sample per cycle, indicating their short life span. However, the cycle day these structures appeared varied up to 5 days between women and the distribution was as follows: day 18 (n=2), day 19 (n=7), day 20 (n=4), day 21 (n=3), day 22 (n=1) in ovarian stimulation cycles, and day 20 (n=2), day 21 (n=2), day 22 (n=3) in natural cycles. Furthermore, accelerated pinopode formation in ovarian stimulation cycles was positively correlated with day 13 progesterone. Our findings show that ovarian stimulation does not affect endometrial pinopode formation in terms of quantity and life span. The cycle days when pinopodes form are specific to the individual, being on average 1–2 days earlier in ovarian stimulation than in natural cycles. These changes in pinopode expression may reflect shifts in the window of receptivity, resulting in ovo-endometrial asynchrony and limiting implantation success in in-vitro fertilization.
Key words: endometrial pinopodes/implantation/IVF/nidation window/uterine receptivity
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Song, K. Han, and H. Lim Progesterone supplementation extends uterine receptivity for blastocyst implantation in mice Reproduction, February 1, 2007; 133(2): 487 - 493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Q. Panzan, J. M. S. Junior, E. L. A. da Motta, E. F. Haapalainen, M. de Jesus Simoes, H. A. Baptista, M. A. Haidar, and E. C. Baracat Metoclopramide-induced hyperprolactinaemia caused marked decline in pinopodes and pregnancy rates in mice Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2514 - 2520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Strowitzki, A. Germeyer, R. Popovici, and M. von Wolff The human endometrium as a fertility-determining factor Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 617 - 630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Macklon, R. L. Stouffer, L. C. Giudice, and B. C. J. M. Fauser The Science behind 25 Years of Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization Endocr. Rev., April 1, 2006; 27(2): 170 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Simon, J. Oberye, J. Bellver, C. Vidal, E. Bosch, J.A. Horcajadas, C. Murphy, S. Adams, A. Riesewijk, B. Mannaerts, et al. Similar endometrial development in oocyte donors treated with either high- or standard-dose GnRH antagonist compared to treatment with a GnRH agonist or in natural cycles Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2005; 20(12): 3318 - 3327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Kabir-Salmani, H. Nikzad, S. Shiokawa, Y. Akimoto, and M. Iwashita Secretory role for human uterodomes (pinopods): secretion of LIF Mol. Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2005; 11(8): 553 - 559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Horcajadas, A. Riesewijk, J. Polman, R. van Os, A. Pellicer, S. Mosselman, and C. Simon Effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF on endometrial gene expression profiles Mol. Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 11(3): 195 - 205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Mirkin, G. Nikas, J.-G. Hsiu, J. Diaz, and S. Oehninger Gene Expression Profiles and Structural/Functional Features of the Peri-Implantation Endometrium in Natural and Gonadotropin-Stimulated Cycles J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2004; 89(11): 5742 - 5752. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. H. Bloomfield, M. H. Oliver, P. Hawkins, A. C. Holloway, M. Campbell, P. D. Gluckman, J. E. Harding, and J. R. G. Challis Periconceptional Undernutrition in Sheep Accelerates Maturation of the Fetal Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Late Gestation Endocrinology, September 1, 2004; 145(9): 4278 - 4285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Creus, J. Ordi, F. Fabregues, R. Casamitjana, F. Carmona, A. Cardesa, J. A. Vanrell, and J. Balasch The effect of different hormone therapies on integrin expression and pinopode formation in the human endometrium: a controlled study Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2003; 18(4): 683 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Thathiah, C. P. Blobel, and D. D. Carson Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha Converting Enzyme/ADAM 17 Mediates MUC1 Shedding J. Biol. Chem., January 24, 2003; 278(5): 3386 - 3394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kosaka, H. Fujiwara, K. Tatsumi, S. Yoshioka, T. Higuchi, Y. Sato, T. Nakayama, and S. Fujii Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells enhance cell-cell interaction between human endometrial epithelial cells and BeWo-cell spheroids Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2003; 18(1): 19 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.M. Adams, N. Gayer, M.J. Hosie, and C.R. Murphy Human uterodomes (pinopods) do not display pinocytotic function Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2002; 17(8): 1980 - 1986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Thomas, A.J. Thomson, V. Sephton, C. Cowan, S. Wood, G. Vince, C.R. Kingsland, and D.I. Lewis-Jones The effect of gonadotrophic stimulation on integrin expression in the endometrium Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2002; 17(1): 63 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Prapas, N. Prapas, A. Hatziparasidou, P. Vanderzwalmen, M. Nijs, S. Prapa, and G. Vlassis Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer maximizes the IVF results on day 3 and day 4 embryo transfer but has no impact on day 5 Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2001; 16(9): 1904 - 1908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.K. Lobb and E.V. Younglai Granulosa-luteal cell function in vitro and ovarian stimulation protocols Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2001; 16(1): 195 - 196. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. R. Murphy Understanding the apical surface markers of uterine receptivity: Pinopods--or uterodomes? Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2000; 15(12): 2451 - 2454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Krusche, A. Herrler, I. Classen-Linke, C. Hegele-Hartung, U. von Rango, and H. M. Beier Modulation of endometrial transformation in gonadotrophin-stimulated and unstimulated pseudo-pregnant rabbits: studies with the progesterone receptor antagonist, onapristone Mol. Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2000; 6(8): 726 - 734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|