Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function?

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function? / Hviid Saxtorph, Malene; Persson, Gry; Hallager, Trine; Birch Petersen, Kathrine; Eriksen, Jens O.; Larsen, Lise Grupe; Macklon, Nick; Hviid, Thomas Vauvert F.

In: American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, Vol. 84, No. 6, e13323, 2020.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hviid Saxtorph, M, Persson, G, Hallager, T, Birch Petersen, K, Eriksen, JO, Larsen, LG, Macklon, N & Hviid, TVF 2020, 'Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function?', American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, vol. 84, no. 6, e13323. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.13323

APA

Hviid Saxtorph, M., Persson, G., Hallager, T., Birch Petersen, K., Eriksen, J. O., Larsen, L. G., Macklon, N., & Hviid, T. V. F. (2020). Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function? American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 84(6), [e13323]. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.13323

Vancouver

Hviid Saxtorph M, Persson G, Hallager T, Birch Petersen K, Eriksen JO, Larsen LG et al. Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function? American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 2020;84(6). e13323. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.13323

Author

Hviid Saxtorph, Malene ; Persson, Gry ; Hallager, Trine ; Birch Petersen, Kathrine ; Eriksen, Jens O. ; Larsen, Lise Grupe ; Macklon, Nick ; Hviid, Thomas Vauvert F. / Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function?. In: American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 2020 ; Vol. 84, No. 6.

Bibtex

@article{ffbf6a2877b84da5b3f58ea67c0c7806,
title = "Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function?",
abstract = "Problem: To what extent do endocrine, immunological, gene expression and histological markers of endometrial receptivity correlate?. Method of study: Between November 2017 and September 2019, 121 women referred to a University Hospitals Fertility Clinic consented to inclusion in this cohort study. The women underwent timed endometrial biopsy followed by blood samples in a hormone-substituted cycle. Of these, 37 women had just started IVF treatment, and the remaining 84 had experienced recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI. The hormone-substituted cycle consisted of initiation with oral oestradiol followed by addition of vaginal progesterone treatment for five full days. Endometrial biopsies were subject to histological examination, immune cell markers by immunohistochemistry (CD56+, CD16+, CD163+, FoxP3) and gene expression microarray analyses with the endometrial receptivity array (ERA{\textregistered}) test (Igenomix). Plasma progesterone and oestradiol were measured on the day of biopsy. Results: CD56+ uterine natural killer (uNK) cell counts correlate with transcriptional markers of endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test. Endometrial maturation, receptivity and immunological markers were not correlated with mid-luteal blood plasma progesterone level. Mid-luteal serum oestradiol level correlated with markers of endometrial maturation and receptivity. The tests were carried out during a standard hormone substitution cycle, and the findings may not apply in the natural cycle. Conclusion: CD56+ uNK cell counts and endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test appear to be linked. Mid-luteal progesterone levels were not correlated to the tested markers of endometrial receptivity. In contrast, mid-luteal oestradiol level was inversely related to markers of endometrial receptivity and maturation.",
keywords = "endometrial function, endometrial maturation, endometrial receptivity, luteal phase, uterine natural killer cells",
author = "{Hviid Saxtorph}, Malene and Gry Persson and Trine Hallager and {Birch Petersen}, Kathrine and Eriksen, {Jens O.} and Larsen, {Lise Grupe} and Nick Macklon and Hviid, {Thomas Vauvert F.}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1111/aji.13323",
language = "English",
volume = "84",
journal = "Early pregnancy : biology and medicine : the official journal of the Society for the Investigation of Early Pregnancy",
issn = "1046-7408",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are different markers of endometrial receptivity telling us different things about endometrial function?

AU - Hviid Saxtorph, Malene

AU - Persson, Gry

AU - Hallager, Trine

AU - Birch Petersen, Kathrine

AU - Eriksen, Jens O.

AU - Larsen, Lise Grupe

AU - Macklon, Nick

AU - Hviid, Thomas Vauvert F.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Problem: To what extent do endocrine, immunological, gene expression and histological markers of endometrial receptivity correlate?. Method of study: Between November 2017 and September 2019, 121 women referred to a University Hospitals Fertility Clinic consented to inclusion in this cohort study. The women underwent timed endometrial biopsy followed by blood samples in a hormone-substituted cycle. Of these, 37 women had just started IVF treatment, and the remaining 84 had experienced recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI. The hormone-substituted cycle consisted of initiation with oral oestradiol followed by addition of vaginal progesterone treatment for five full days. Endometrial biopsies were subject to histological examination, immune cell markers by immunohistochemistry (CD56+, CD16+, CD163+, FoxP3) and gene expression microarray analyses with the endometrial receptivity array (ERA®) test (Igenomix). Plasma progesterone and oestradiol were measured on the day of biopsy. Results: CD56+ uterine natural killer (uNK) cell counts correlate with transcriptional markers of endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test. Endometrial maturation, receptivity and immunological markers were not correlated with mid-luteal blood plasma progesterone level. Mid-luteal serum oestradiol level correlated with markers of endometrial maturation and receptivity. The tests were carried out during a standard hormone substitution cycle, and the findings may not apply in the natural cycle. Conclusion: CD56+ uNK cell counts and endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test appear to be linked. Mid-luteal progesterone levels were not correlated to the tested markers of endometrial receptivity. In contrast, mid-luteal oestradiol level was inversely related to markers of endometrial receptivity and maturation.

AB - Problem: To what extent do endocrine, immunological, gene expression and histological markers of endometrial receptivity correlate?. Method of study: Between November 2017 and September 2019, 121 women referred to a University Hospitals Fertility Clinic consented to inclusion in this cohort study. The women underwent timed endometrial biopsy followed by blood samples in a hormone-substituted cycle. Of these, 37 women had just started IVF treatment, and the remaining 84 had experienced recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI. The hormone-substituted cycle consisted of initiation with oral oestradiol followed by addition of vaginal progesterone treatment for five full days. Endometrial biopsies were subject to histological examination, immune cell markers by immunohistochemistry (CD56+, CD16+, CD163+, FoxP3) and gene expression microarray analyses with the endometrial receptivity array (ERA®) test (Igenomix). Plasma progesterone and oestradiol were measured on the day of biopsy. Results: CD56+ uterine natural killer (uNK) cell counts correlate with transcriptional markers of endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test. Endometrial maturation, receptivity and immunological markers were not correlated with mid-luteal blood plasma progesterone level. Mid-luteal serum oestradiol level correlated with markers of endometrial maturation and receptivity. The tests were carried out during a standard hormone substitution cycle, and the findings may not apply in the natural cycle. Conclusion: CD56+ uNK cell counts and endometrial receptivity assessed by the ERA test appear to be linked. Mid-luteal progesterone levels were not correlated to the tested markers of endometrial receptivity. In contrast, mid-luteal oestradiol level was inversely related to markers of endometrial receptivity and maturation.

KW - endometrial function

KW - endometrial maturation

KW - endometrial receptivity

KW - luteal phase

KW - uterine natural killer cells

U2 - 10.1111/aji.13323

DO - 10.1111/aji.13323

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 33245608

AN - SCOPUS:85090758366

VL - 84

JO - Early pregnancy : biology and medicine : the official journal of the Society for the Investigation of Early Pregnancy

JF - Early pregnancy : biology and medicine : the official journal of the Society for the Investigation of Early Pregnancy

SN - 1046-7408

IS - 6

M1 - e13323

ER -

ID: 248732772