Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: May 2011

Chapter 26 - Proteomics analysis of the endometrium and embryo. Can we improve IVF outcome?


Polscope imaging provides valuable information on the structure and architecture of themeiotic spindle and the zona pellucida (ZP), which helps predict fertilization, embryo development, and pregnancy. Differential interference contrast (DIC) is most efficient when imaging through glass coverslips, an impractical requirement for clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF), so most IVF laboratories employ variations of the DIC method, such as Hoffman modulation (HM). When imaging the oocyte for IVF, it is important to maintain tight temperature control, because both reduced and elevated temperature disrupts the integrity of the meiotic spindle. Spindles can be imaged non-invasively by polarized light microscopy. A quantitative polarized light microscope, the polscope, which uses circularly rather than plane polarized light, provides orientation-independent and, therefore, quantitative measurement of retardance in living specimens. Further studies are needed to determine whether spindle abnormalities predict aneuploidy as revealed by the more invasive preimplantation genetic screening (PGS).


1. GuerifF, Le GougeA, GiraudeauB, et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1973–81.
2. AndersenAN, GoosensV, FerrarettiAP, et al. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2008;23:756–71.
3. NygrenK, AndersenAN, FelberbaumR, et al. ESHRE’s European IVF Monitoring (EIM). On the benefit of assisted reproduction techniques, a comparison of the USA and Europe. Hum Reprod 2006;21:21.
4. DominguezF, PellicerA, SimonC. Paracrine dialogue in implantation. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2002;186:175–81.
5. HorcajadasJA, PellicerA, SimónC. Wide genomic analysis of human endometrial receptivity: new times, new opportunities. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:77–86.
6. ShankarR, CullinaneF, BrenneckeSP, MosesEK. Applications of proteomics methodologies to human pregnancy research: a growing gestation approaching delivery? Proteomics 2004;4:1909–17.
7. DeSouzaL, DiehlG, YangE, et al. Proteomic analysis of the proliferative and secretory phases of the human endometrium: Protein identification and differential protein expression. Proteomics 2005;5:270–81.
8. DominguezF, Garrido-GomezT, LopezJA, et al. 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 2009;24:2607–17.
9. ArribasJ, BorrotoA. Protein ectodomain shedding. Chem Rev 2002;102:4627–38.
10. BlobelCP. Remarkable roles of proteolysis on and beyond the cell surface. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2000;12:606–12.
11. Van der GaastMH, Beier-HellwigK, FauserBC, et al. Endometrial secretion aspiration prior to embryo transfer does not reduce implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:105–9.
12. MeseguerM, PellicerA, SimonC. MUC1 and endometrial receptivity. Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4:1089–98.
13. LesseyBA, CastelbaumAJ, WolfL, et al. Use of integrins to date the endometrium. Fertil Steril 2000;73:779–87.
14. DiedrichK, FauserBC, DevroeyP, et al. The role of the endometrium and embryo in human implantation. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:365–77.
15. MaathuisJB, AitkenRJ. Protein patterns of human uterine flushings collected at various stages of the menstrual cycle. J Reprod Fertil 1978;53:343–8.
16. BeierHM, Beier-HellwigK. Molecular and cellular aspects of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:448–58.
17. LairdSM, TuckermanEM, DaltonCF. The production of leukemia inhibitory factor by human endometrium: presence in uterine flushings and production by cells in culture. Hum Reprod 1997;12:569–74.
18. LiTC, DaltonC, HunjanKS, et al. The correlation of placental protein 14 concentrations in uterine flushings and endometrial morphology in the peri-implantation period. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1923–7.
19. Classen-LinkeI, AlferJ, KruscheCA, et al. Progestins, progesterone receptor modulators, and progesterone antagonist change VEGF release of endometrial cells in culture. Steroids 2000;65:763–71.
20. SimonC, MercaderA, FrancesA, et al. Hormonal regulation of serum and endometrial IL-1α, IL-1β and IL-1ra: IL-1 endometrial microenvironment of the human embryo at the apposition phase under physiological and supraphysiological steroid level conditions. J Reprod Immunol 1996;31:165–84.
21. MakkarG, NgEH, YeungWS, et al. Reduced expression of interleukin-11 and interleukin-6 in the peri-implantation endometrium of excessive ovarian responders during in-vitro fertilization treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:3181–8.
22. StoneBA, PetruccoOM, SeamarkRF, et al. Concentrations of steroid hormones, and of prolactin, in washings of the human uterus during the menstrual cycle. J Reprod Fertil 1986;78:21–5.
23. LichtP, LoschA, DittrichR, et al. Novel insights into human endometrial paracrinology and embryo-maternal communication by intrauterine microdialysis. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:532–8.
24. Beier-HellwigK, SterzikK, BonnB, et al. Contribution to the physiology and pathology of endometrial receptivity: the determination of proteins patterns in human uterine secretions. Hum Reprod 1989;4:115–20.
25. Van der GaastMH, Beier-HellwigK, FauserBC, et al. Endometrial secretion aspiration prior to embryo transfer does not reduce implantation rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:105–9.
26. LiTC, MacKennaA, RobertsR. The techniques and complications of out-patient uterine washing in the assessment of endometrial function. Hum Reprod 1993;8:343–6.
27. OlivennesF, Ledee-BatailleN, SamamaM, et al. Assessment of leukemia inhibitary factor levels by uterine flushing at the time of egg retrieval does not adversely affect pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003;79:900–4.
28. Van der GaastMH, Classen-LinkeI, KruscheCA, et al. Impact of ovarian stimulation on mid-luteal endometrial tissue and secretion markers of receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;4:553–63.
29. Casado-VelaJ, Rodriguez-SuarezE, IloroI, et al. Comprehensive proteomic analysis of human endometrial fluid aspirate. J Proteome Res 2009;8:4622–32.
30. LathamKE, GarrelsJI, ChangC, et al. Analysis of embryonic mouse development: construction of a high-resolution, two-dimensional gel protein database. Appl Theor Electrophor 1992;2:163–70.
31. ShiCZ, CollinsHW, GarsideWT, et al. Protein databases for compacted eight-cell and blastocyst-stage mouse embryos. Mol Reprod Develop 1994;37:34–47.
32. Navarrete SantosA, TonackS, KirsteinM, et al. Two insulin-responsive glucose transporter isoforms and the insulin receptor are developmentally expressed in rabbit preimplantation embryos. Reproduction 2004;128:503–16.
33. WangY, PuscheckEE, LewisJJ, et al. Increases in phosphorylation of SAPK/JNK and p38MAPK correlate negatively with mouse embryo development after culture in different media. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1144–54.
34. GutsteinHB, MorrisJS, AnnangudiSP, et al. Microproteomics: analysis of protein diversity in small samples. Mass Spectrom Rev 2008;27:316–30.
35. JansenC, HebedaKM, LinkelsM, et al. Protein profiling of B-cell lymphomas using tissue biopsies: a potential tool for small samples in pathology. Cell Oncol 2008;30:27–38.
36. Katz-JaffeMG, GardnerDK, SchoolcraftWB. Proteomic analysis of individual human embryos to identify novel biomarkers of development and viability. Fertil Steril 2006;85:101–7.
37. Katz-JaffeMG, SchoolcraftWB, GardnerDK. Analysis of protein expression (secretome) by human and mouse preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 2006;86:678–85.
38. Katz-JaffeMG, LinckDW, SchoolcraftWB, et al. A proteomic analysis of mammalian preimplantation embryonic development. Reproduction 2005;130:899–905.
39. DominguezF, GadeaB, EstebanFJ, et al. Comparative protein-profile analysis of implanted versus non-implanted human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1993–2000.
40. DominguezF, GadeaB, MercaderA, et al. Embryologic outcome and secretome profile of implanted blastocysts obtained after coculture in human endometrial epithelial cells versus the sequential system. Fertil Steril 2010;93:774–82.
41. KovatsS, MainEK, LibrachC, et al. A class I antigen, HLA-G, expressed in human trophoblasts. Science 1990;248:220–3.
42. JurisicovaA, CasperRF, MacLuskyNJ, et al. HLA-G expression during preimplantation human embryo development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:161–5.
43. NociI, FuzziB, RizzoR, et al. Embryonic soluble HLA-G as a marker of developmental potential in embryos. Hum Reprod 2005;20:138–46.
44. SherG, KeskintepeL, FischJD, et al. Soluble human leukocyte antigen G expression in phase I culture media at 46 h after fertilization predicts pregnancy and implantation from day 3 embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1410–13.
45. MénézoY, ElderK, VivilleS. Soluble HLA-G release by the human embryo: an interesting artefact? Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13:763–4.
46. SageshimaN, ShobuT, AwaiK, et al. Soluble HLA-G is absent from human embryo cultures: a reassessment of sHLA-G detection methods. J Reprod Immunol 2007;75:11–22.
47. SargentI, SwalesA, LedeeN, et al. sHLA-G production by human IVF embryos: can it be measured reliably? J Reprod Immunol 2007;75:128–32.
48. FragouliE, LenziM, RossR, et al. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2596–608.
49. Katz-JaffeMG, FagouliE, FillipovitsJ, WellsD, SchoolcraftWB. Relationship between the human blastocyst secretome and chromosomal constitution. Fertil Steril 2008;90:S80.
50. HuJ, CoombesKR, MorrisJS, et al. The importance of experimental design in proteomic mass spectrometry experiments: some cautionary tales. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2005;3:322–31.