Proteomic pattern of implantative human endometrial fluid in in vitro fertilization cycles
To assess whether there are proteins in endometrial fluid aspirate (EFA) that predict implantation.
The population under study consisted of 285 women undergoing embryo transfer (ET). Endometrial fluid aspiration was performed immediately before ET. Results of proteomic analysis of EFA were compared between 33 cases who achieved pregnancy and 33 who did not. Samples were analysed by 2D electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. Blood samples were studied by ELISA Pregnancy rates and maternal complications were compared to those in women refusing aspiration.
We found 23 proteins differentially expressed in the EFA in conception cycles: 4 up-regulated proteins and 19 down-regulated (FC = 0.31 0.78) (among others, arginase-1, actin B, PARK-7, cofilin-1, stathmin, annexin-2 and CAPZB). Among the five studied proteins that were differentially expressed in EFA, none was differentially expressed in serum. The aspiration procedure had no impact on pregnancy rate. No maternal complications were reported.
We found a very different protein profile in implantative cycles, the majority of proteins being down-regulated. This probably reflects a different endometrial functional status, more favourable to implantation. EFA proteomic analysis could be a useful tool in the planning ET strategies.
KeywordsEndometrium Implantation IVF Endometrial fluid Proteomics
RM: manuscript writing, supervision. SQ: data collection. BC: data collection. BP: supervision. AE: investigation, manuscript writing. RM: protocol. AR: supervision. DM: data collection. MF: protocol. FE: methodology. AA: methodology, validation, software. DN: methodology, validation, software
This study was partially funded by a Grant for Fertility Innovation (GFI, 2011) from Merck, Darmstadt, Germany.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Authors declare that they have not conflict of interest.
We obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (CEIC 09/54 and CEIC 11/45) and informed consent from participants.
- 3.Valdez-Morales FJ, Gamboa-Domínguez A, Vital-Reyes VS, Cruz JC, Chimal-Monroy J, Franco-Murillo Y, Cerbón M (2015) Changes in receptivity epithelial cell markers of endometrium after ovarian stimulation treatments: its role during implantation window. Reprod Health 12:45–56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Díaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Bosch N, Martínez-Conejero JA, Alamá P, Garrido N, Pellicer A, Simón C (2013) The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 99:508–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Li J, Tan Z, Li MT, Liu YL, Liu Q, Gu XF, Zhou JZ, Zhuang GL (2006) Study of altered expression of annexin IV and human endometrial receptivity. Zhonghua Fu Chan KeZaZhi. 41:803–805Google Scholar
- 23.Domínguez F, Garrido-Gómez T, López JA, Camafeita E, Quiñonero A, Pellicer A, Simón C (2009) Proteomic analysis of the human receptive versus non-receptive endometrium using differential in-gel electrophoresis and MALDI-MS unveils stathmin 1 and annexin A2 as differentially regulated. Hum Reprod 24:2607–2617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Schild RL, Knobloch C, Dorn C, Fimmers R, van der Ven H, Hansmann M (2001) Endometrial receptivity in an in vitro fertilization program as assessed by spiral artery blood flow, endometrial thickness, endometrial volume, and uterine artery blood flow. Fertil Steril 75:361–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar