Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 12, 2451-2454,
December 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Understanding the apical surface markers of uterine receptivity
Pinopods—or uterodomes?
Department of Anatomy and Histology, F13, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: histology{at}anatomy.usyd.edu.au
The plasma membrane of uterine epithelial cells is very sensitive to ovarian hormones and protrusions of the apical portion of this membrane have been used as indicators of endocrine status and preparation for implantation in the human uterus in particular. Protrusions of the apical plasma membrane were first identified in rats and mice where their established pinocytotic function gave rise to the name `pinopod'. In humans and many other animals however, little evidence of the functional nature of such protrusions is available but what is available suggests that human `pinopods' (useful though they are as indicators of endocrine status) might be more similar morphologically to other, larger, membrane protrusions, or apical domes, which have been shown not to be pinocytotic. Hence, I propose that these latter protrusions, including those in the human uterus, should be referred to by a term which does not imply a particular function and have settled on the name `uterodome'.
Key words: apical plasma membrane/pinopods/uterine receptivity
This debate was previously published on Webtrack, August 21, 2000
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Rahnama, B. Thompson, M. Steiner, F. Shafiei, P. E. Lobie, and M. D. Mitchell Epigenetic Regulation of E-Cadherin Controls Endometrial Receptivity Endocrinology, March 1, 2009; 150(3): 1466 - 1472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Li, Y. Wu, and K. M. Caron Haploinsufficiency for Adrenomedullin Reduces Pinopodes and Diminishes Uterine Receptivity in Mice Biol Reprod, December 1, 2008; 79(6): 1169 - 1175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. K Gipson, T. Blalock, A. Tisdale, S. Spurr-Michaud, S. Allcorn, A. Stavreus-Evers, and K. Gemzell MUC16 Is Lost from the Uterodome (Pinopode) Surface of the Receptive Human Endometrium: In Vitro Evidence That MUC16 Is a Barrier to Trophoblast Adherence Biol Reprod, January 1, 2008; 78(1): 134 - 142. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J Kimber Leukaemia inhibitory factor in implantation and uterine biology Reproduction, August 1, 2005; 130(2): 131 - 145. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|