SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Embryo endometrial dialogue;
  • embryo implantation;
  • endometrial receptivity

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

Citation Rashid NA, Lalitkumar S, Lalitkumar PG, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Endometrial Receptivity and Human Embryo Implantation. Am J Reprod Immunol 2011; 66 (Suppl. 1): 23–30

Problem  The pre-requisite of successful implantation involves an intricate cascade of molecular interactions which plays a crucial role in preparing receptive endometrium and implanting blastocyst.

Method of study  Data are hereby presented for a better understanding of endometrial receptivity in women, hoping to provide a comprehensive picture of the process and identify new areas of basic and translational research in the biology of blastocyst implantation.

Results  Timely regulation of the expression of a number of complex molecules like hormones, cytokines and growth factors, and their crosstalk from embryonic and maternal endometrial side play a major role in determining the fate of the embryo. The molecular basis of endometrial receptivity and the mechanisms by which the blastocyst first adheres to the luminal epithelium and then penetrates into the stroma are only just beginning to be resolved.

Conclusion  Advances in the development of implantation models and ‘omics’ technologies, particularly proteomics and metabolomics, are set to have a major impact on the development of this field.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

Blastocyst implantation is dependent on nonlinear interaction of multiple modules and motifs with specific time and space contexts. These operational characteristics collectively attribute to the emerging property of a robust order in the system.1 Our knowledge about the process underlying the control system of blastocyst implantation is very thin.2 According to the Cartesian paradigm, blastocyst implantation is a process that is determined by linear and direct interaction of three primary modules that are integral to the physiological process: endometrial competence with adequate progesterone priming, viable embryo, and a synchronized dialogue between endometrium and pre-implantation embryo.

The term endometrial ‘receptivity’ was introduced to define the short time window during which uterus allows embryo implantation to occur.3,4 This phenomenon was first established in the rat and later validated in other species.5 Receptivity refers to the physiological property of a state when endometrium allows blastocyst to attach, penetrate, and induce localized changes in the stroma resulting in decidualization.6 Endometrial receptivity is conditional, requiring an escape mechanism sensitive to maternal and embryonic status. It is a self-limited period in which the endometrium acquires a functional and transient ovarian steroid-dependent status that allows a blastocyst to be received and further supports implantation through the mediation by immune cells, cytokines, growth factors, chemokines, and adhesion molecules.7–9 This specific period, known as ‘the implantation window’ opens 4–5 days after endogenous or exogenous progesterone stimulation and closes 9–10 days afterward.10,11 The anatomical change in the surface epithelium is the appearance of microprotrusions from the apical surface of the epithelium, termed pinopodes, which appear 6 days after ovulation and is retained for 24 hr during the implantation window. These exhibit a smooth surface that facilitates the apposition of blastocyst with the endometrium.12,13 During secretory phase of the endometrium, a complex meshwork of capillaries is evident in the upper functionalis layer and this increase in the capillary permeability is one of the earliest detectable responses that lead to stromal edema at the time of implantation in the human.14 Thus, vascular changes appear to be an important factor in establishing endometrial receptivity.

The key to endometrial receptivity is the dynamic and precisely controlled molecular and cellular events that drive implantation and establishment of pregnancy. This dynamic process involves coordinated effects of autocrine, paracrine, and endocrine factors. As it is not possible to study the implantation process in women in vivo because of ethical and technical issues, most of the data in the literature to understand this process have been derived from animal studies and they have provided valuable insights into molecular mechanisms that occur during embryo implantation.

Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

In most eutherian mammals, ovarian steroidal hormones, estrogen, and progesterone play very important roles in endometrial receptivity, blastocyst implantation, and maintenance of pregnancy. However, serum levels of these hormones in pregnancy cycles show high degree of variation across the species. It also appears from human IVF-ET reports that the ratio of progesterone to estrogen in circulation is critical for the secretory maturation of the endometrial glands during the mid-luteal phase and high level of estrogen may adversely affect endometrial receptivity and inhibit implantation.15–17 It has also been shown that luteal phase ovarian estrogen is not essential for blastocyst implantation in the human.18 Animal models also prove this concept.19 However, progesterone is essential for blastocyst implantation and has also been well proved by (i) neutralization of circulating progesterone20–23 by administration of specific antibodies; (ii) by inhibiting the biosynthesis of progesterone or indirectly by inhibiting stimulation of these cells by hormones, and (iii) by interfering with the action of progesterone at target organ level through the use of progesterone receptor blockers or antiprogestogens.24–26

Collectively, it appears that progesterone is essential for endometrium to attain the receptive stage, blastocyst implantation, and maintenance of pregnancy, and that mid-luteal-phase ovarian estrogen is not essential for blastocyst implantation and maintenance of pregnancy.

Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

The ovarian steroids, progesterone, and estrogen have a major regulatory role by mobilizing several molecular modulators in spatiotemporal manner which supports embryo implantation.27 They control the cascade of growth factors and cytokines which are the prime paracrine mediators of the dialogue at the maternal–embryonic interface. It appears that the endometrial receptivity is the result of the synchronized and integrated interaction of ovarian hormones, endometrial factors, and embryonic signals. Various endocrine and paracrine factors correlate relevant to endometrial receptivity and implantation have been documented based on studies in areas directly related to human reproduction as well as from research studies using small animals and non-human primates. Progesterone during the luteal phase is known to modulate the synthesis and secretion of a number of proteins.28–32

Cell adhesion molecules involved in cell–cell and cell–matrix interaction contribute to cell migration and transduction of differentiation signals.33 The co-expression of αvβ3 and alpha4beta1in human endometrium during implantation window has been documented.34–36 Endometrial epithelial cells synthesize a large amount of calcitonin 37 and HOXA-1038 during mid-secretory phase of the menstrual cycle.

It is well documented that prostaglandins (PGs) play an important role in various reproductive processes, including ovulation, implantation, and menstruation.39 Cyclooxygenases (COX-1 and COX-2) are the crucial enzymes responsible for the synthesis of various PGs. PG levels in the uterine fluid undergo cyclic variations in response to P4.40

The importance of many cytokines and growth factors and their receptors in the control of cellular processes and blastocyst formation is well documented.41–43 Cytokines are small multifunctional glycoproteins, whose biological actions are mediated by specific cell-surface receptors and act as potent intercellular signals regulating functions of endometrial cells and embryo–maternal interactions. Entry of blastocyst into the receptive uterine is very important for the production of cytokines by trophoblastic cells and uterine epithelium which can modulate the endometrial receptivity by regulating the expression of various adhesion molecules.44 In mammals, deregulated expression of cytokines and their signaling leads to an absolute or partial failure of implantation and abnormal placental formation.45

The first evidence of the role of LIF, a pleiotropic cytokine, in implantation came from the report that embryos failed to implant in LIF-deficient female mice. However, after LIF supplementation in the same mouse model, normal implantation was restored. Most recently, it has been shown that LIF plays a role in both adhesive and invasive phases of implantation owing to its anchoring effect on the trophoblast.46 These findings suggest that LIF plays a major role in both rodents and primate implantation. Our studies using in vivo human implantation show that an optimum level of LIF is required for blastocyst implantation. Also, it shows that neutralization of LIF in the invitro 3-D culture inhibits blastocyst implantation (unpublished data).

Expression of IL-6 was found to be present during mid-secretary phase and is mostly localized in epithelial glandular cells.47 In humans, IL-6 receptor (IL-6-R) is found to be expressed during menstrual cycle, thus providing evidence that the role of IL-6 in controlling endometrial receptivity and implantation is not species specific.48 Together with LIF and IL-6, IL-11 belongs to the gp130 cytokines (i.e. cytokines which share the gp130 accessory signal-transducing subunit). IL-11 and its receptor (IL-11Rα) have recently been observed in the human endometrium. All the major cell types in endometrium express IL-11 with cyclical variation.

Matrix metalloproteases (MMP) play an important role in tissue remodeling and break down by degrading the components of extracellular matrix. MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-9, and MMP-10 are seen in the endometrium.49 The balance between the MMPs and their natural inhibitors is of primary importance in determining the tissue degradation at the implantation site.

Apart from cytokines, there are various growth factors like TGF beta, a cytokine that plays an important role in tissue remodeling, extracellular matrix formation, and immunomodulation depending on its concentration. TGF-beta may act as autocrine-paracrine regulator at the implantation site by expressing proteases and anti-proteases.50 Heparin-binding epidermal growth factor (HB-EGF) plays a crucial role in implantation was given from the studies conducted in mice.51 HB-EGF was found to be expressed in human endometrium at the time of implantation.52 IGF-I was found be immunolocalized in stromal cells at day 5 of pregnancy in rat uterus and was suggested to be involved in decidualization of stromal cells. The function of IGF-II: IGF-BP1 at the feto-maternal interface involve balance between invasion and its suppression to achieve normal implantation and placental development.53,54 Apart from these factors, there are many others which have been studied to be regulated during endometrial receptivity.

Embryo Endometrial Dialogue

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

The first step in implantation is a dialogue between free-floating blastocyst and the receptive endometrium, which is mediated by hormones and growth factors55 is followed by apposition, where the trophoblast cells adhere to the receptive luminal epithelium. Micro protrusions present on the surface of uterine epithelium known as pinopodes may have a role in this process.56 Consequently, blastocyst adheres to the endometrial basal lamina and stromal extracellular matrix through local paracrine signaling between the embryo and endometrium. Finally the invasion process, which involves penetration of the embryo through the luminal epithelium into the stroma thereby establishing a vascular relationship with the mother. Thus, success of implantation depends on a receptive endometrium, a functionally normal blastocyst and a synchronized cross-talk between embryonic and maternal tissues.57,58

Endometrium is known to become receptive only for short periods, and beyond this period of receptivity, embryo is unable to successfully establish contact with refractive endometrium. Therefore, timely arrival of embryo in a receptive endometrium is very much crucial for successful implantation.59 In addition to the physical interaction of the embryonic tissue with the uterine cells, this process is undoubtedly influenced by maternal steroid hormones, growth factors, and cytokines in paracrine manner thus playing a crucial role in embryonic signaling.60,61 The intricate process of implantation also requires other key molecules in addition to hormones like progesterone and estrogen.62 Embryo co-cultured with endometrial epithelial cells demonstrated up-regulation of integrin-beta3 on the surface of epithelial cells suggesting that it could be mediated by embryonic IL-1alpha.63 Co-culture of embryo and human endometrial stromal cells enhances the expression of various isoforms of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) and IGF-1 receptor on preimplantation stage embryos.64 Interestingly, the presence of embryo also upregulates the production of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGF-BPs) by human endometrial stromal cells.65

Thus, it appears that endometrial receptivity during the mid-luteal phase of cycle is likely to be associated with differential activation and repression of various cohorts of genes in endometrium under progesterone action following signal inputs from viable, synchronously developing embryo.

Models to Study Embryo Implantation

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

To understand the complex phenomenon of human embryo implantation, several research groups have come up with many in vivo models. The simple ones being monolayer cultures with stromal cell show that Rho GTPases Rac1 and RhoA in human endometrial stromal cells modulate invasion of the human embryo through the endometrial stroma.66 Attempts have been made to use human embryonic stem cells to understand the mechanism of trophoblast cell adhesion and invasion in vivo.67 Also, the usage of different endometrial cell lines as substrate for embryonic adhesion and trophoblast invasion have been tested.68 Having monolayer cell culture model have their own limitations as we have evidenced that paracrine signals are involved in leading the endometrium to the matured state. Using intact endometrial strips in vivo cultures were not successful as they lead to necrotic changes at the center of the tissue.69 Our group has developed a 3D culture model using endometrial stromal and epithelial cells from receptive phase to study the human endometrial and embryo interaction. This 3D culture model expresses steroid receptors ER and PR as well as receptivity markers like VEGF, LIF, MUC1, and integrin αvβ3.70 The model was tested for its progesterone regulation of receptivity markers and the process of embryo implantation.71 The schematic representation of the model is shown in Fig. 1. Using this model, we have shown that optimum level of LIF is required for human embryo implantation (unpublished data). Interestingly, the human preimplantation embryo expresses LIF -R reinforcing the dialogue between the embryo and the maternal tract through LIF.72 This model may be applied to study the embryo-endometrial dialog and the process of human embryo implantation; as such, investigative studies are not possible to do in vivo because of the ethical and technical limitations. Improving this method may help us to understand the early gene expression and may lead to more information about some of the genetic disorders. Also, this model may help to screen for teratogenic effects of various drugs or environmental factors.

image

Figure 1.  Endometrial 3D construct developed in vitro to study human embryo implantation. (a) Schematic representation of 3D construct. Endometrial stromal cells were embedded into collagen gel, and epithelial cells were seeded on the top. After coating with matrigel, epithelial cells were seeded and cultured with progesterone containing medium for 4–5 days. (b) Cross section of the 3D endometrial construct stained with hematoxylin. (d) Human embryos were placed and cultured for further 5 days, and the attachment of embryos was studied under the influence of various factors. (c) The top view of the endometrial construct with epithelial cells.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

The current knowledge of pre-implantation and implantation physiology is the result of observations gathered by many researchers and physicians through these years. Collectively, present literature suggests the role of a variety of molecules as potential mediators of embryo–uterine interactions during implantation. Despite its simplistic and deterministic edges, the major problem of this model is that it fails to delineate the following observations like occurrence of successful implantation despite progesterone starvation,73 delayed implantation74 and cases of implantation failure with no anomaly in endometrium and ovarian functions.75

Over a century, the biological research has provided a wealth of knowledge about individual cellular component and its function. Thus, in the pre-genomic era, a one-by-one approach was adopted to investigate several genes and gene products during the window of implantation. Despite this, it is clear that a discrete and robust biological function like endometrial receptivity and blastocyst implantation can rarely be attributed to a single molecule and a small group of molecules, rather they arise from a complex interaction between cells and among numerous molecules. A key aim of post-genomic biomedical research is to adopt an inductive approach toward systematically catalogue all molecules and their interaction within the living cells.76 There are indeed a few human reports wherein transcripts profile of mid-luteal stage endometrium has been compared with that of proliferative stage or early luteal stage endometrium to delineate the role of progesterone in establishing endometrial receptivity for embryo implantation.77–82 Recently, major advances in the genomics of the endometrium83 and oocytes84 have been achieved with the microarray and bioinformatics technologies available, to provide a vast amount of information regarding gene expression in endometrium. All the aforementioned inductive studies give information on the differences in relative gene expression between two fixed time points of menstrual cycles, considering mid-secretory phase as the putative window of implantation. All these studies offer the opportunity to develop an endometrial database of genes expressed during the window of implantation resulting in the contribution in gaining an insight into the complexity of endometrial receptivity. However, gene expression is only one aspect of the complex regulatory network that allows cells to respond to intracellular and extracellular signals. The pre-requisite in this direction is to describe an expression pattern of a molecule followed by more mechanistic approaches such as gene-targeting to correct the abnormality. Previous studies have established the role of various molecules as implantation regulators, but the list is still expanding each year. While significant advancement has been made in this area, there have been limited attempts to systematically analyze and integrate the cohorts of factors in the context of embryo, endometrium, and the hormonal milieu in an integrated manner using systems biology approach and robust tools like high throughput transcriptomics and proteomics, and computational modeling. However, gene expression is only one aspect of the complex regulatory network that allows cells to respond to intracellular and extracellular signals. Unlike the genome, the proteome itself is dynamic, complex, and variable. Furthermore, it depends upon the developmental stage of the cells, reflecting the impact of both internal and external environmental stimuli. Proteomics is often considered the next step in the study of biological systems and is more complicated than genomics. Garrido-Gomez et al.85 compared the proteomes of pre-receptive (day LH+2) vs. receptive (LH+7) endometrial biopsies obtained from the same fertile woman (n = 6) in the same menstrual cycle. Biopsies were analyzed using two-dimensional fluorescence difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS). Dominguez et al. 86 also investigated the secretome profile of implanted blastocysts which developed after performing an embryo biopsy for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and were subsequently grown in a sequential system or cocultured with endometrial epithelial cells (EEC). In another study, endometrial fluid obtained transcervically by aspiration immediately prior to embryo transfer was analyzed and the protein profile in each sample was determined.87 Recently, Van der Gaast et al.88 investigated the effect of ovarian stimulation in IVF on endometrial secretion and markers of receptivity in the mid-luteal phase. All these studies gives us the clues to study the protein profile along with genomics which will help us in providing a better understanding of the embryo implantation in relation to endometrial receptivity.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

The events during implantation are the result of regulated changes in gene transcriptions that ultimately control the expression of embryonic and endometrial proteomes. In recent years, ‘omics’ techniques have advanced to such an extent that rapid identification of genes or proteins of interest can be readily secured. However, technical limitations still exist which compromise the uniqueness of the results obtained. Proteomics together with genomics and metabolomics are complementary approaches which will improve our understanding of the complexity of the implantation process. All these approaches and information needs to be integrated into a system biology approach to understand endometrial receptivity and the embryo–endometrial dialog in holistic way.

Acknowledgment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

The studies performed by the authors at Karolinska Institutet were supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (2003-3869, K2007-54X-14212-06-3, K2010-54X-14212-09-3) and Stockholm City County/Karolinska Institutet (ALF). Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson acts occasionally as an ad hoc invited speaker at scientific meetings for MSD.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Hormonal Requirement for Endometrial Receptivity and Blastocyst Implantation
  5. Functional Parameter of Endometrial Receptivity
  6. Embryo Endometrial Dialogue
  7. Models to Study Embryo Implantation
  8. Advanced Tools to Understand Endometrial Receptivity
  9. Conclusion
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References
  • 1
    Kauffman SA: The Origins of Order. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 441522, 1993.
  • 2
    Macklon NS, Geraedts JPM, Fauser BCJM: Conception to ongoing pregnancy: the ‘black box’ of early pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8:333343.
  • 3
    Psychoyos A: Hormonal control of uterine receptivity for nidation. J Reprod Fertil 1976; (Suppl. 25):1728.
  • 4
    Yoshinaga K: Uterine receptivity for blastocyst implantation. Ann Natl Acad Sci USA 1988; 541:424431.
  • 5
    Psychoyos A: Uterine receptivity for nidation. Ann NY Acad Sci 1986; 476:3642.
  • 6
    Rossman I: The deciduomal reaction in rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatto). Am J Anatomy 1940; 66:277365.
  • 7
    Kammerer U, Von Wolff M, Markert UR: Immunology of human endometrium. Inmunobiology 2004; 209:569574.
  • 8
    Giudice LC: Implantation and endometrial function. In Fauser, B.C.J.M. (ed.) Reproductive Medicine: Molecular, Cellular and Genetic Fundamentals. New York, NY, Parthenon Publishing, 2002; pp. 439465.
  • 9
    Dimitriadis E, White CA, Jones R, Salamonsen LA: Cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in endometrium related to implantation. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11:613630.
  • 10
    Finn CL, Martin L: The control of implantation. J Reprod Fertil 1974; 39:195206.
  • 11
    Martin J, Dominguez F, Avila S, Castrillo JL, Remoh J, Pellicer A, Simon C: Human endometrial receptivity: gene regulation. J Reprod Immunol 2002; 55:131139.
  • 12
    Edwards RG: Physiological and molecular aspect of implantation. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:113.
  • 13
    Nikas G, Drakakis P, Loutradis D, Mara-Skoufari C, Koumantakis E, Michalas S, Psychoyos A: Uterine pinopodes as markers of the nidation window in cyclic women receiving exogenous oestradiol and progesterone. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:12081213.
  • 14
    Johannisson E, Landgren BM, Rohr HP, Diczfalusy E: Endometrial morphology and peripheral hormone levels in women and regular menstrual cycles. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:401408.
  • 15
    Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou P: The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vivo fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature 1984; 307:174175.
  • 16
    Chen Q-J, Xiao-xi S, Lu L, Xiao-hong G, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Li-nan C: Effects of ovarian stimulation on endometrial integrin beta 3 and leukemia inhibitory factor expression in the peri-implantation phase. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:13571363.
  • 17
    Chen QJ, Sun XX, Li L, Gao XH, Wu Y, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Cheng LN: Effects of ovarian high response on implantation and pregnancy outcome during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (with GnRH agonist and rFSH). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86:849854.
  • 18
    Zegers-Hochschild F, Altieri E: Luteal phase estrogen is not required for establishmet of pregnancy in the human. J Assit Reprod Genet 1995; 12:224228.
  • 19
    Ghosh D, De P, Sengupta J: Luteal phase oestrogen is not essential for implantation and maintenance of pregnancy from surrogate embryo transfer in the rhesus monkey. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:629637.
  • 20
    Wright LJ, Feinstein A, Heap RB, Saunders JC, Bennett RC, Wang MY: Progesterone monoclonal antibody blocks pregnancy in mice. Nature 1982; 295:415417.
  • 21
    Wang MY, Rider V, Heap RB, Feinstein A: Action of antiprogesterone monoclonal antibody in blocking pregnancy after postcoital administration in mice. J Endocrinol 1983; 101:95100.
  • 22
    Rider V, Wang MY, Finn C, Heap RB, Feinstein A: Anti-fertility effect of passive immunization against progesterone is influences by genotype. J Endocrinol 1986; 108:117121.
  • 23
    Phillips A, Hahn DW, McGuuire J, Wang M-W, Heap RB, Rider V, Taussig MJ: Inhibition of pregnancy before and after implantation in rats with monoclonal antibody against progesterone. Contraception 1988; 38:109116.
  • 24
    Van look PFA, Bygdeman M: Antiprogestational steroids: a new dimension in human fertility regulation. Oxford Rev Reprod Biol 1989; 11:160.
  • 25
    Swahn ML, Gemzell K, Bygdeman M: Contraception with mifepristone. Letter to the Editor. Lancet 1991; 338:942943.
  • 26
    Gemzell-Danielsson K, Swahn ML, Svalander P, Bygdeman M: Early luteal phase treatment with mifepristone (RU 486) for fertility control. Hum Reprod 1993; 8:870873.
  • 27
    Carson DD, Bagchi I, Dey SK, Enders AC, Fazleabas AT, Lessey BA, Yoshinaga K: Embryo implantation. Dev Biol 2000; 223:217237.
  • 28
    Bell SC, Drife JO: Secretory proteins of the endometrium–potential markers for endometrial dysfunction. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 3:271291.
  • 29
    Seppala M, Koistinen R, Rutanen EM: Uterine endocrinology and paracrinology: insulin like growth factor binding protein-1 and placenta-14-revisited. Hum Reprod 1991; 9:917925.
  • 30
    Okulicz WC, Ace CL, Longcope AC, Tast H: Analysis of differential gene regulation in adequate versus inadequate secretary phase endometrial complementary deoxyribonucleic acid population from the rhesus monkey. Endocrinology 1996; 137:48444850.
  • 31
    Gemzell Danielsson K, Svalander P, Swahn ML, Bygdeman M: Effects of a single post-ovulatory dose of RU 486 on endometrial maturation in the implantation phase. Human Reprod 1994; 9:23982404.
  • 32
    Beier-Hellwig K, Sterzik K, Bonn B, Hilmes U, Bygdeman M, Gemzell DanielssonK, Beier HM: Hormone regulation and hormone antagonist effects on protein patterns of human endometrial secretion during receptivity. In The Human Endometrium, (ed.) Ann NY Acad Sci USA 1994; 734: 143156.
  • 33
    Ruoslahti E: Integrins. J Clin Invest 1994; 87:15.
  • 34
    Lassey BA, Castelbaum AJ, Buck CA, Lei Y, Yowell CW, Sun J: Further characterization of endometrial integrins during the menstrual cycle and in pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1994; 62:497506.
  • 35
    Lassey BA, Damjanovich L, Coutfaris C, Castelbaum A, Albelda SM, Buck CA: Integrin adhesion molecules in the human endometrium: correlation with the normal and abnormal menstrual cycle. J Clin Invest 1992; 90:188195.
  • 36
    Tabibzadeh S, Kong QF, Babaknia A: Expression of adhesion molecules in human endometrial vasculature throughout the menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994; 79:10241032.
  • 37
    Diao HL, Li SJ, Wang HB, Yang ZM: Calcitonin immunostaining in monkey uterus during menstrual cycle and early pregnancy. Endocrine 2002; 18:7578.
  • 38
    Taylor HB, Arici A, Olive D, Igarashi P: HOX10 is expressed in response to sex steroids at the time of Implantation on the human endometrium. J Clin Invest 1998; 101:13791384.
  • 39
    Jabbour HN, Sales KJ: Prostaglandin receptor signalling and function in human endometrial pathology. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2004; 15:398404.
  • 40
    Gemzell Danielsson K, Hamberg M: The effect of RU 486 and naproxen on uterine fluid PGF2a concentrations at implantation. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:16261630.
  • 41
    Adamson ED: Activities of growth factors in preimplantation embryos. J Cell Biochem 1993; 53:280287.
  • 42
    Sharkey AM, Dallow K, Bayney M, Macnamee M, Charnock-Jones S, Smith K: Stage-specific expression of cytokine and receptor messenger ribonucleic acids in human preimplantation embryos. Biol Reprod 1995; 53:974981.
  • 43
    Harvey MB, Leco KJ, Arcellana-Panlilio MY, Zhang X, Edwards DR, Schultz GA: Roles of growth factors during preimplantation development. Mol Hum Reprod 1995; 10:712718.
  • 44
    Simon C, Gimeno MJ, Mercader A, O’Connor JE, Remohi J, Polan ML, Pellicer A: Embryonic regulation of integrins beta 3, alpha 4, and alpha 1 in human endometrial epithelial cells in vivo. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82:26072616.
  • 45
    Guzeloglu-Kayisli O, Kayisli UA, Taylor HS: The role of growth factors and cytokines during implantation: endocrine and paracrine interactions. Semin Reprod Med 2009; 27:6279.
  • 46
    Dimitriadis E, Nie G, Hannan N, Paiva P, Salamonsen LA: Local regulation of implantation at the human fetal-maternal interface. Int J Dev Biol 2010; 54:313322.
  • 47
    Tabibzadeh S, Kong QF, Babaknia A, May LT: Progressive rise in the expression of interleukin-6 in human endometrium during menstrual cycle is initiated during the implantation window. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:27932799.
  • 48
    Tabibzadeh S, Babaknia A: The signals and molecular pathways involved in implantation, a symbiotic interaction between blastocyst and endometrium involving adhesion and tissue invasion. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:15791602.
  • 49
    Nardo LG, Sabatini L, Rai R, Nardo F: Pinopode expression during human implantation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002; 101:104108.
  • 50
    Hang L, Wullt B, Shen Z, Karpman D, Svanborg C: Cytokine repertoire of epithelial cells lining the human urinary tract. J Urol 1998; 159:21852192.
  • 51
    Das SK, Wang XN, Paria BC, Damm D, Abraham JA, Klagsbrun M, Andrews GK, Dey SK: Heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor gene is induced in the mouse uterus temporally by the blastocyst solely at the site of its apposition: a possible ligand for interaction with blastocyst EGF-receptor in implantation. Development 1994; 120:10711083.
  • 52
    Birdsall MA, Hopkisson JF, Grant KE, Barlow DH, Mardon HJ: Expression of heparin-binding epidermal growth factor messenger RNA in the human endometrium. Mol Human Reprod 1996; 2:3134.
  • 53
    Fowler DJ, Nicaides KH, Miell JP: Insulin like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP1): a multifunctional role in the human female reproductive tract. Hum Reprod Update 2000; 6:495504.
  • 54
    Giudice LC, Irwin JC, Dsupin BA, Pannier EM, Jin IH, Vu TH, Hoffman AR: Insulin-like growth factor (IGF), IGF binding protein (IGFBP), and IGF receptor gene expression and IGFBP synthesis in human uterine leiomyomata. Hum Reprod 1993; 8:17961806.
  • 55
    Tabibzadeh S, Babaknia A: The signals and molecular pathways involved in implantation, a symbiotic interaction between blastocyst and endometrium involving adhesion and tissue invasion. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:15791602.
  • 56
    Lopata A, Bentin-Ley U, Enders A: “Pinopodes” and implantation. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2002; 3:7786.
  • 57
    Dominguez F, Pellicer A, Simon C: Paracrine dialogue in implantation. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2002; 186:175181.
  • 58
    Herrler A, Von Rango U, Beier HM: Embryo-maternal signalling: how the embryo starts talking to its mother to accomplish implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:244256.
  • 59
    Ma WG, Song H, Das SK, Paria BC, Dey SK: Estrogen is a critical determinant that specifies the duration of the window of uterine receptivity for implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:29632968.
  • 60
    Simon C, Martin JC, Pellicer A: Paracrine regulators of implantation. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 14:815826.
  • 61
    Simon C, Valbuena D: Embryonic implantation. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 1999; 60:134136.
  • 62
    Kodaman PH, Taylor HS: Hormonal regulation of implantation. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2004; 31:745766.
  • 63
    Simon C, Gimeno MJ, Mercader A, O’Connor JE, Remohi J, Polan ML, Pellicer A: Embryonic regulation of integrins beta 3, alpha 4, and alpha 1 in human endometrial epithelial cells in vitro. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82:26072616.
  • 64
    Liu H-C, He Z-y, Mele CA, Veeck LL, Davis O, Rosenwaks Z: Human endometrial stromal cells improve quality by enhancing the expression of insulin-like growth factors and their receptors in cocultured human preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 1999; 71:361367.
  • 65
    Liu HC, Mele Cate D, Noyes N, Rosenwaks Z: Production of insulin like growth factor binding protein (IGFBPs) by human endometrial stromal cells is stimulated by the presence of embryos. J Assist Reprod 1995; 12:7887.
  • 66
    Grewal S, Carver JG, Ridley AJ, Mardon HJ: Implantation of the human embryo requires Rac1-dependent endometrial stromal cell migration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105:1618916194.
  • 67
    Golos TG, Giakoumopoulos M, Garthwaite MA : Embryonic stem cells as models of trophoblast differentiation: progress, opportunities, and limitations. Reproduction 2010; 140:39.
  • 68
    Hannan NJ, Paiva P, Dimitriadis E, Salamonsen LA: Models for study of human embryo implantation: choice of cell lines? Biol Reprod 2010; 82:235245.
  • 69
    Landgren BM, Johannisson E, Stavreus-Evers A, Hamberger L, Eriksson H: A new method to study the process of implantation of a human blastocyst in vivo. Fertil Steril 1996; 65:10671070.
  • 70
    Meng CX, Andersson KL, Bentin-Ley U, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Lalitkumar PG: Effect of levonorgestrel and mifepristone on endometrial receptivity markers in a three-dimensional human endometrial cell culture model. Fertil Steril 2009; 91:256264.
  • 71
    Lalitkumar PG, Lalitkumar S, Meng CX, Stavreus-Evers A, Hambiliki F, Bentin-Ley U, Gemzell-Danielsson K: Mifepristone, but not levonorgestrel, inhibits human blastocyst attachment to an in vivo endometrial three-dimensional cell culture model. Hum Reprod 2007; 11:30313037.
  • 72
    Wanggren K, Lalitkumar PG, Hambiliki F, Stabi B, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Stavreus-Evers A: Leukaemia Inhibitory Factor Receptor and gp130 in the Human Fallopian tube and Endometrium before and after mifepristone treatment and in the Human Pre-implantation Embryo. Mol Hum Reprod 2007; 13:391397.
  • 73
    Edwards RG: Physiological and molecular aspect of implantation. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:113.
  • 74
    Rogers PAW, Murphy CR: Uterine receptivity for implantation: human studies. In Blastocyst Implantation, YoshinagaK (ed). Boston, MA, Adams Pub, 1989, pp 231238.
  • 75
    Norwitz ER, Schust DJ, Fisher SJ: Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:14001408.
  • 76
    Sherwin R, Catalano R, Sharkey A: Large scale gene expression studies of the endometrium: what have we learnt? Reproduction 2006; 132:110.
  • 77
    Carson DD, Lagow E, Thathiah A, Al-Shami R, Farach-Carson MC, Vernon M, Yuan L, Fritz MA, Lessey B: Changes in gene expression during the early to mid-luteal (receptive phase) transition in human endometrium detected by high-density microarray screening. Mol Hum Reprod 2002; 8:871879.
  • 78
    Borthwick JM, Charnock-Jones DS, Tom BD, Hull ML, Teirney R, Phillips SC, Smith SK: Determination of the transcript profile of human endometrium. Mol Hum Reprod 2003; 9:1933.
  • 79
    Riesewijk A, Martin J, Van Os R, Horcajadas JA, Polman J, Pellicer A, Mosselman S, Simon C: Gene expression profiling of human endometrial receptivity on days LH+2 versus LH+7 by microarray technology. Mol Hum Reprod 2003; 9:253264.
  • 80
    Kao LC, Tulac S, Lobo S, Imani B, Yang JP, Germeyer A, Osteen K, Taylor RN, Lessey BA, Giudice LC: Global gene profiling in human endometrium during the window of implantation. Endocrinology 2002; 143:21192138.
  • 81
    Horcajadas JA, Riesewijk A, Mertin J, Cervero A, Mosselman S, Pellicer A, Simon C: Global gene expression profiling of human endometrial receptivity. J Reprod Immunol 2004; 63:4149.
  • 82
    Mirkin S, Arslan M, Churikov D, Corica A, Diaz JI, Williams S, Bocca S, Oehninger S: In search of candidate genes critically expressed in the human endometrium during the window of implantation. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:21042117.
  • 83
    Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simon C: Wide genomic analysis of human endometrial receptivity: new times, new opportunities. Hum Reprod Update 2007; 13:7786.
  • 84
    Bermudez MG, Wells D, Malter H, Munne S, Cohen J, Steuerwald NM: Expression profiles of individual human oocytes using microarray technology. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8:325337.
  • 85
    Garrido-Gomez T, Dominguez F, Simon C: Proteomics of embryonic implantation. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2010; 198:6778.
  • 86
    Dominguez F, Gadea B, Mercader A, Esteban F, Pellicer A, Simon C: Embryologic outcome and secretome profile of implanted blastocysts obtained after coculture in human endometrial epithelial cells versus the sequential system. Fertil Steril 2010; 93:774782.
  • 87
    Van der Gaast MH, Classen-Linke I, Krusche CA, Beier-Hellwig K, Fauser BCJM, Beier HM, Macklon NS: Impact of ovarian stimulation on mid-luteal endometrial tissue and secretion markers of receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 4:553563.
  • 88
    Van der Gaast MH, Beier-Hellwig K, Fauser BC, Beier HM, Macklon NS: Endometrial secretion aspiration prior to embryo transfer does not reduce implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7:105109.