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 (50)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bentin-Ley, U.
Right arrow Articles by Horn, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bentin-Ley, U.
Right arrow Articles by Horn, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 2, 515-520, February 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Presence of uterine pinopodes at the embryo–endometrial interface during human implantation in vitro

U. Bentin-Ley1,5, A. Sjögren3, L. Nilsson4, L. Hamberger3, J.F. Larsen1 and T. Horn2

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2 Department of Pathology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK–2730 Herlev, Denmark, 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska Hospital, University of Gothenburg and 4 Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

In order to study changes occurring on the surfaces of human endometrial epithelial cells in the presence of an implanted blastocyst, we used scanning electron microscopy for investigation of five endometrial biopsies and three human implantation sites obtained in vitro. All specimens showed areas with endometrial pinopodes, separated by cells displaying microvilli or cilia at the apical surface. Pinopode formation was more pronounced in endometrial biopsies than in cell cultures. All blastocysts adhered to pinopode presenting cells. Endometrial surface changes were not seen around the blastocysts. The results of this study demonstrate that cultured endometrial epithelial cells are capable of pinopode formation. Furthermore, endometrial epithelial pinopodes, generally considered as a marker of endometrial receptivity, seem to be directly involved in the adhesion of the blastocyst to the endometrial surface.

Key words: embryo/human/implantation/in vitro/morphology

5 To whom correspondence should be addressed


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
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
G. X. Rosario, R. R. Katkam, S. Nimbkar-Joshi, D. N. Modi, D. D. Manjramkar, I. Hinduja, K. Zaveri, C. P. Puri, and G. Sachdeva
Expression of Endometrial Protein Kinase A During Early Pregnancy in Bonnet Monkeys (Macaca radiata)
Biol Reprod, December 1, 2009; 81(6): 1172 - 1181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Reproductive SciencesHome page
G. Teklenburg and N. S. Macklon
Review: In Vitro Models for the Study of Early Human Embryo-Endometrium Interactions
Reproductive Sciences, September 1, 2009; 16(9): 811 - 818.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
C.E. Quinn and R.F. Casper
Pinopodes: a questionable role in endometrial receptivity
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2009; 15(2): 229 - 236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
E. Guffanti, N. Kittur, Z. N. Brodt, A. J. Polotsky, S. M. Kuokkanen, D. S. Heller, S. L. Young, N. Santoro, and U. T. Meier
Nuclear pore complex proteins mark the implantation window in human endometrium
J. Cell Sci., June 15, 2008; 121(12): 2037 - 2045.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
K. Diedrich, B.C.J.M. Fauser, P. Devroey, G. Griesinger, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
The role of the endometrium and embryo in human implantation
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2007; 13(4): 365 - 377.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
N. Kittur, G. Zapantis, M. Aubuchon, N. Santoro, D. P. Bazett-Jones, and U. T. Meier
The Nucleolar Channel System of Human Endometrium Is Related to Endoplasmic Reticulum and R-Rings
Mol. Biol. Cell, June 1, 2007; 18(6): 2296 - 2304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
H. Achache and A. Revel
Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2006; 12(6): 731 - 746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 ReproductionHome page
S. J Kimber
Leukaemia inhibitory factor in implantation and uterine biology
Reproduction, August 1, 2005; 130(2): 131 - 145.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
T. Utsunomiya, H. Ito, M. Nagaki, and J. Sato
A prospective, randomized study: day 3 versus hatching blastocyst stage
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 19(7): 1598 - 1603.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
H. Tinel, H.-W. Denker, and M. Thie
Calcium influx in human uterine epithelial RL95-2 cells triggers adhesiveness for trophoblast-like cells. Model studies on signalling events during embryo implantation
Mol. Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2000; 6(12): 1119 - 1130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]


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.