Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 199–210 | Cite as

Detailed endometrial immune assessment of both normal and adverse reproductive outcome populations

  • Kevin MarronEmail author
  • David Walsh
  • Conor Harrity
Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Abstract

Purpose

Using a comprehensive flow cytometric panel, do endometrial immune profiles in adverse reproductive outcomes such as repeat implantation failure (RIF) and repeat pregnancy loss (RPL) differ from each other and male-factor controls?

Methods

Six-hundred and twelve patients had an endometrial biopsy to assess the immunophenotype. History on presentation was used to subdivide the population into recurrent implantation failure (RIF) [n = 178], recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) [n = 155], primary infertility [n = 130] and secondary infertility [n = 114]. A control group was utilised for comparative purposes [n = 35] and lymphocyte subpopulations were described.

Results

Distinct lymphocyte percentage differences were noted across the populations. Relative to controls and RPL, patients with a history of RIF had significantly raised uterine NKs (53.2 vs 45.2 & 42.9%, p < 0.0001). All sub-fertile populations had increased percentage peripheral type NKs (p = 0.001), and exhibited increased CD69+ activation (p = 0.005), higher levels of B cells (p < 0.001), elevated CD4:CD8 ratio (p < 0.0001), lower T-regs (p = 0.034) and a higher proportion of Th1+ CD4s (p = 0.001). Patient aetiology confers some distinct findings, RPL; pNK, Bcells and CD4 elevated; RIF; uNK and CD56 raised while CD-8 and NK-T lowered.

Conclusions

Flow cytometric endometrial evaluation has the ability to provide a rapid and objective analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations. The findings show significant variations in cellular proportions of immune cells across the patient categories relative to control tissue. The cell types involved suggest that a potential differential pro-inflammatory bias may exist in patients with a history of adverse reproductive outcomes. Immunological assessment in appropriate populations may provide insight into the underlying aetiology of some cases of reproductive failure.

Keywords

Endometrium ART Natural killer cells Lymphocytes Immunophenotype 

Abbreviations

PGT-A

preimplantation genetic analysis-aneuploidy

RPL

recurrent pregnancy loss

RM

recurrent miscarriage

RIF

repeat implantation failure

ART

assisted reproductive technologies

HRT

hormone replacement therapy

uNK

uterine type natural killer cells

pNK

peripheral blood type natural killer cells

CD

cluster of differentiation

Th1

T helper type 1 (pro-inflammatory)

Th2

T helper type 2 (anti-inflammatory)

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Sims IVF patients who contributed tissue samples to facilitate the analysis and the Staff of the Clinic for their support. Thanks also to Dr. Renate Van der Molen, UMC Radboud, for critical appraisal of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest is present.

Supplementary material

10815_2018_1300_MOESM1_ESM.docx (636 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 635 kb)
10815_2018_1300_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (461 kb)
ESM 2 Co-localisation of CD45 lymphocytes with 7-AAD illustrating only live endometrial derived cells are analysed in the lymphocytes gate. (JPG 460 kb)
10815_2018_1300_MOESM3_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 13 kb)
10815_2018_1300_MOESM4_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Lathi RB, Westphal LM, Milki AA. Aneuploidy in the miscarriages of infertile women and the potential benefit of preimplanation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(2):353–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El Hachem H, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:331–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giakoumelou S, Wheelhouse N, Cuschieri K, Entrican G, Howie SEM, Horne AW. The role of infection in miscarriage. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):116–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozdag G, Aksan G, Esinler I, Yarali H. What is the role of office hysteroscopy in women with failed IVF cycles? Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(3):410–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riccio L, et al. Immunology of endometriosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;50:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stern C, Chamley L. Antiphospholipid antibodies and coagulation defects in women with implantation failure after IVF and recurrent miscarriage. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;13(1):29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Simone N, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies affect human endometrial angiogenesis: protective effect of a synthetic peptide (TIFI) mimicking the phospholipid binding site of beta(2) glycoprotein I. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2013;70(4):299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(6):515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Revel A. Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1028–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kwak-Kim J, Bao S, Lee SK, Kim JW, Gilman-Sachs A. Immunological modes of pregnancy loss: inflammation, immune effectors, and stress. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2014;72(2):129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill JA. Immunological contributions to recurrent pregnancy loss. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;6(3):489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franasiak JM, Scott RT. Contribution of immunology to implantation failure of euploid embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):1279–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lucas ES, Dyer NP, Murakami K, Hou Lee Y, Chan YW, Grimaldi G, et al. Loss of endometrial plasticity in recurrent pregnancy loss. Stem Cells. 2016;34(2):346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steer CV, Campbell S, Tan SL, Crayford T, Mills C, Mason BA, et al. The use of transvaginal color flow imaging after in vitro fertilization to identify optimum uterine conditions before embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(2):372–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diaz-Gimeno P, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):50–60. 60.e1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moffett A, Shreeve N. Reply: first do no harm: continuing the uterine NK cell debate. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):218–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maecker HT, McCoy JP, Nussenblatt R. Standardizing immunophenotyping for the human immunology project. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12(3):191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Mourik MS, Macklon NS, Heijnen CJ. Embryonic implantation: cytokines, adhesion molecules, and immune cells in establishing an implantation environment. J Leukoc Biol. 2009;85(1):4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savasi VM, Mandia L, Laoreti A, Cetin I. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donation pregnancies. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(5):620–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tang AW, Alfirevic Z, Quenby S. Natural killer cells and pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent miscarriage and infertility: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(8):1971–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell P, Sacks G, Tremellen K, Gee A. The distribution of immune cells and macrophages in the endometrium of women with recurrent reproductive failure. III: further observations and reference ranges. Pathology. 2013;45(4):393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laird, L., Li, Bulmer, <RCOG 2016 guidelines.pdf>. 2016.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanna J, Goldman-Wohl D, Hamani Y, Avraham I, Greenfield C, Natanson-Yaron S, et al. Decidual NK cells regulate key developmental processes at the human fetal-maternal interface. Nat Med. 2006;12(9):1065–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loke YW, King A, Burrows TD. Decidua in human implantation. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(Suppl 2):14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lédée N, Petitbarat M, Chevrier L, Vitoux D, Vezmar K, Rahmati M, et al. The uterine immune profile may help women with repeated unexplained embryo implantation failure after in vitro fertilization. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2016;75(3):388–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lachapelle MH, et al. Endometrial T, B, and NK cells in patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Altered profile and pregnancy outcome. J Immunol. 1996;156(10):4027–34.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ledee N, et al. Specific and extensive endometrial deregulation is present before conception in IVF/ICSI repeated implantation failures (IF) or recurrent miscarriages. J Pathol. 2011;225(4):554–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moffett A, Colucci F. Uterine NK cells: active regulators at the maternal-fetal interface. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(5):1872–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quenby S, Farquharson R. Uterine natural killer cells, implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;13(1):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vassiliadou N, Bulmer JN. Immunohistochemical evidence for increased numbers of ‘classic’ CD57+ natural killer cells in the endometrium of women suffering spontaneous early pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(7):1569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alecsandru D, Garcia-Velasco JA. Why natural killer cells are not enough: a further understanding of killer immunoglobulin-like receptor and human leukocyte antigen. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):1273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laufer N, Simon A. Recurrent implantation failure: current update and clinical approach to an ongoing challenge. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1019–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Medicine, T.P.C.o.t.A.S.f.R., Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 2012. 98(5): p. 1103–1111.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ESHRE, <ESHRE RPL Guideline_28112017_FINAL.pdf>. 2017.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burkhard SH, Mair F, Nussbaum K, Hasler S, Becher B. T cell contamination in flow cytometry gating approaches for analysis of innate lymphoid cells. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dosiou C, Giudice LC. Natural killer cells in pregnancy and recurrent pregnancy loss: endocrine and immunologic perspectives. Endocr Rev. 2005;26(1):44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marci R, Gentili V, Bortolotti D, Lo Monte G, Caselli E, Bolzani S, et al. Presence of HHV-6A in endometrial epithelial cells from women with primary unexplained infertility. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coulam CB, Bilal M, Salazar Garcia MD, Katukurundage D, Elazzamy H, Fernandez EF, et al. Prevalence of HHV-6 in endometrium from women with recurrent implantation failure. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2018;80:e12862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Siewiera J, el Costa H, Tabiasco J, Berrebi A, Cartron G, Bouteiller P, et al. Human cytomegalovirus infection elicits new decidual natural killer cell effector functions. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(4):e1003257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fehniger TA, Cooper MA, Nuovo GJ, Cella M, Facchetti F, Colonna M, et al. CD56bright natural killer cells are present in human lymph nodes and are activated by T cell-derived IL-2: a potential new link between adaptive and innate immunity. Blood. 2003;101(8):3052–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Petitbarat M, Rahmati M, Sérazin V, Dubanchet S, Morvan C, Wainer R, et al. TWEAK appears as a modulator of endometrial IL-18 related cytotoxic activity of uterine natural killers. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e14497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fukui A, Funamizu A, Yokota M, Yamada K, Nakamua R, Fukuhara R, et al. Uterine and circulating natural killer cells and their roles in women with recurrent pregnancy loss, implantation failure and preeclampsia. J Reprod Immunol. 2011;90(1):105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thiruchelvam U, Wingfield M, O'Farrelly C. Natural killer cells: key players in endometriosis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2015;74(4):291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gleicher N. Expected advances in human fertility treatments and their likely translational consequences. J Transl Med. 2018;16(1):149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hviid MM, Macklon N. Immune modulation treatments—where is the evidence? Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):1284–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alecsandru D, Garcia-Velasco JA. Immune testing and treatment: still an open debate. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(8):1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sacks G. Enough! Stop the arguments and get on with the science of natural killer cell testing. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(7):1526–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ledee N, et al. Impact of prednisone in patients with repeated embryo implantation failures: beneficial or deleterious? J Reprod Immunol. 2018;127:11–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Potdar N, Gelbaya T, Nardo LG. Endometrial injury to overcome recurrent embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25(6):561–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gnainsky Y, Granot I, Aldo PB, Barash A, Or Y, Schechtman E, et al. Local injury of the endometrium induces an inflammatory response that promotes successful implantation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2030–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nastri, C.O., et al., Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015(3): p. Cd009517.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reljic M, et al. Endometrial injury, the quality of embryos, and blastocyst transfer are the most important prognostic factors for in vitro fertilization success after previous repeated unsuccessful attempts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(6):775–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sims IVF ClinicDublinIreland
  2. 2.RCSIBeaumont HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations