Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tuckerman, E.
Right arrow Articles by Li, T.C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tuckerman, E.
Right arrow Articles by Li, T.C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 1, 196-205, January 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Markers of endometrial function in women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: a comparison between morphologically normal and retarded endometrium

E. Tuckerman1, S.M. Laird1,2,4, R. Stewart3, M. Wells3 and T.C. Li1

1 Biomedical Research Unit, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield S10 2SF, 2 BRMC, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Sheffield S1 1WB and 3 Academic Unit of Pathology, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK

4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: S.M.Laird{at}shu.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Endometrial defect, usually described as luteal phase defect (LPD), is associated with recurrent miscarriage. Recurrent miscarriage has also been associated with the abnormal expression of various molecules by endometrial cells. The aim of this study was to determine if any of these molecules or cells could be used to distinguish LPD from in-phase endometrium. METHODS: Immunocytochemistry was used to compare endometrial expression of CD45+, CD56+, CD3+ and CD4+ cells, leukaemia inhibitory factor, interleukin-6 and estrogen and progesterone receptors in precisely timed endometrial biopsies obtained between days LH+6 and LH+11 from recurrent miscarriage women with in-phase and retarded endometrium. RESULTS: In all samples there was a positive correlation between the number of CD45+ cells and LH day and a negative correlation between progesterone receptor and LIF expression and LH day. A significantly lower number (P < 0.05) of CD56+ cells in peri-implantation endometrium and a decreased mid-cycle estrogen level (P < 0.05) was seen in women with LPD compared to in-phase endometrium when single analysis was carried out. However, these differences were not significant after application of the Bonferroni correction for multiple analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results are in line with previous associations observed between estrogen levels and LPD and suggest that the number of CD56+ cells is different in LPD and in-phase endometrium, although this could be due to delayed endometrial development in women with LPD. Interpretation must be cautious because these differences could have arisen by chance.

Key words: cytokines/endometrium/leukocytes/luteal phase defect/recurrent miscarriage


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
E. Tuckerman, S.M. Laird, A. Prakash, and T.C. Li
Prognostic value of the measurement of uterine natural killer cells in the endometrium of women with recurrent miscarriage
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2208 - 2213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Reproductive SciencesHome page
F. M. Reis, L. L. Nascimento, A. Tsigkou, M. C. Ferreira, S. Luisi, and F. Petraglia
Activin A and Follistatin in Menstrual Blood: Low Concentrations in Women With Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding
Reproductive Sciences, May 1, 2007; 14(4): 383 - 389.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.