Open Access

TRIzol treatment of secretory phase endometrium allows combined proteomic and mRNA microarray analysis of the same sample in women with and without endometriosis

  • Amelie Fassbender1,
  • Peter Simsa1,
  • Cleophas M Kyama1, 2,
  • Etienne Waelkens3,
  • Attila Mihalyi1,
  • Christel Meuleman1,
  • Olivier Gevaert4,
  • Raf Van de Plas4,
  • Bart de Moor4 and
  • Thomas M D'Hooghe1, 2Email author
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology20108:123

DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-8-123

Received: 11 August 2010

Accepted: 21 October 2010

Published: 21 October 2010

Abstract

Background

According to mRNA microarray, proteomics and other studies, biological abnormalities of eutopic endometrium (EM) are involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, but the relationship between mRNA and protein expression in EM is not clear. We tested for the first time the hypothesis that EM TRIzol extraction allows proteomic Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionisation Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS) analysis and that these proteomic data can be related to mRNA (microarray) data obtained from the same EM sample from women with and without endometriosis.

Methods

Proteomic analysis was performed using SELDI-TOF-MS of TRIzol-extracted EM obtained during secretory phase from patients without endometriosis (n = 6), patients with minimal-mild (n = 5) and with moderate-severe endometriosis (n = 5), classified according to the system of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Proteomic data were compared to mRNA microarray data obtained from the same EM samples.

Results

In our SELDI-TOF MS study 32 peaks were differentially expressed in endometrium of all women with endometriosis (stages I-IV) compared with all controls during the secretory phase. Comparison of proteomic results with those from microarray revealed no corresponding genes/proteins.

Conclusion

TRIzol treatment of secretory phase EM allows combined proteomic and mRNA microarray analysis of the same sample, but comparison between proteomic and microarray data was not evident, probably due to post-translational modifications.

Background

Endometriosis is a gynaecological disorder, defined as the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus and is associated with chronic intrapelvic inflammation. Its symptoms can impact on general well-being [1] and include severe dysmenorrhoea; deep dyspareunia; chronic pelvic pain; cyclical or premenstrual symptoms (e.g. bowel or bladder associated) with or without abnormal bleeding; infertility and chronic fatigue.

Well established biological differences between eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis represent an interesting scientific basis to develop a semi-invasive diagnostic test for endometriosis based on these differences. Recent evidence suggests that significant biological differences between eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis [2] may offer the basis for a semi-invasive diagnostic test based on the analysis of an endometrial biopsy. Numerous proteomic [310] and mRNA microarray [1114] studies have demonstrated important biological differences between eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis. Furthermore, data from other investigators [1517] and from our group [18] suggest that endometriosis can be diagnosed based on the increased endometrial density of nerve fibres in women with endometriosis compared to controls.

The primary aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that TRIzol extraction of endometrium enables a combined mRNA microarray and proteomic analysis of the same EM sample from both women with and without endometriosis. The secondary aim of our study was to compare proteomic data (presented in this study) with mRNA microarray data [13] of the same EM sample.

Methods

Patient selection

The same endometrium samples selected for this study were as those used in our previous microarray study [13]. Briefly, the biobank of the Leuven University Fertility Centre was searched to identify 16 endometrial (EM) samples obtained during the secretory phase (dated between day 23 - 26) from each of the following 3 groups, women with a normal pelvis (controls, n = 6), women with minimal to mild endometriosis (stages I-II, n = 5), and from women with moderate to severe endometriosis (stages III-IV, n= 5). Endometriosis was staged according to the classification system of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine [19]. Endometrial samples had been collected during hysteroscopy/laparoscopy procedures for either infertility or pain and had been frozen at -80°C until use. None of our patients took oral contraceptives or other hormonal treatment for endometriosis within 3 months prior to EM sample collection. Women with and without endometriosis had the following age (mean 28.10±2,767, median 27.5, range 26-29.5 years) and (mean 32.33±3.933, median 33, range 28.50-35.5 years), respectively. All patients had signed a written informed consent before surgery and had agreed on the collection of tissues for research. The study protocol had been approved by the institutional ethical and review board of the University Hospital Gasthuisberg for the protection of human subjects.

Preparation of endometrial samples

TRIzol (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad CA, USA) [20], a monophasic solution of phenol and guanidine isothiocyanate, was used as a one step reagent for the extraction of RNA, Protein from each EM sample. The protein quantity and quality was analyzed on the Nanodrop and protein measurements ranged between 0,39 to 16 mg/ml. 10 μg of protein concentration were used to spot on each surface.

Frozen EM tissue biopsies were immediately thawed in TRIzol reagent according to the instructions of the manufacturers. Briefly, tissues were homogenized using a glass tube with a glass stick to smash the sample to pieces, 300 μl/105 μl chloroform were added and left at room temperature for five minutes. The samples were centrifuged at 10 000 rpm at 4°C for 15 minutes. The upper aqueous phase was separated and washed with Qiagen kit (following manufacturer's instructions). The aliquot including the protein fraction were thawed on ice and sonicated. 600 μl acetone was added with inversion and left at room temperature for 10 min. The samples were centrifuged at 12000 rpm at 4°C for 10 minutes. Twice 0.5 ml of 0.3 M urea in 95% ethanol was added and left at room temperature for 10 min. The samples were centrifuged at 8,000 g for 5 minutes and twice 1 ml of urea/ethanol were added and dissolved in 300 μl U9 Ciphergen (9 M Urea, 2% 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl) dimethyl-ammonio]-1-propanesulfonate (CHAPS), 50 mM tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane-HCl (Tris-HCl) pH 9.0) (Ciphergen Biosystems, Fremont, CA, USA). The samples were sonicated and left at room temperature for 10-20 minutes and spun at 8,000 g for 5 minutes to sediment the insoluble protein. The samples were stored at -80°C.

ProteinChip Arrays

First a brief test phase was performed on four chip types (Cm10, IMAC30-Cu, H50 and Q10) to find the best (rich spectra) chip type for this experiment. Two different chip surfaces with distinct chromatographic properties and binding affinities were used, Weak cation exchange surface (CM10) with a low stringency binding buffer (50 mM NaOAC, pH 4.0) and Immobilized metallic affinity capture surface (IMAC-30-Cu) loaded with CuSO4, with a 0.1 M phosphate, 0.5 M NaCl, pH7.0.

Briefly, ProteinChip array spots were equilibrated with 150 μl of respective binding buffer (Ciphergen, Fremont, CA, USA) while shaking twice for five minutes at room temperature to pre-activate binding surfaces. Then, 20 μl of sample (10 μg per spot) diluted (1:5 vol/vol) with the surface-type dependent binding buffer were loaded onto each spot in duplicate and incubated for 60 minutes at room temperature while being shaken in the dark (MicroMix5, form 20, amplitude 5; Diagnostics Product Corporation, Gwynedd, Wales, United Kingdom). The unbound proteins/peptides on the ProteinChip array surfaces were washed away with appropriate buffer twice for 5 minutes rinsed in 150 μl of Milli-Q water and air-dried. Mass spectra of the retained proteins were obtained by ionising the proteins using two types of energy absorbing molecules (EAM): alpha-cyano-4-hydroxy cinnamic acid (CHCA), for small molecules (< 15 kDa), and sinapinic acid (SPA), for larger molecules (both EAM were obtained from Ciphergen, Fremont, CA, USA). The CHCA (5 mg CHCA dissolved in 150 μl of 50% acetonitrile, 0.5% trifluoroacetic acid) was diluted five times in the respective solvent, and 1 μl was applied twice onto the retained proteins on the spots. The SPA (5 mg SPA dissolved in 400 μl of 50% acetonitrile, 0.5% trifluoroacetic acid) was applied in two consecutive steps in volumes of 1 μl. Analysis of the retained proteins was performed with a Protein Biological System-IIC (PBSIIC) linear SELDI-TOF-MS instrument (Ciphergen). Mass accuracy was calibrated externally with the all-in-one peptide molecular mass standard (Ciphergen Biosystems, Fremont, CA, USA) for the mass range of 1.6 kDa-20 kDa and with the all-in-one protein molecular mass standard (Ciphergen Biosystems, Fremont, CA, USA) for the mass range of 8-150 kDa.

Statistical analysis of proteomic data

The SELDI-TOF mass spectra were baseline corrected and normalised on the basis of total ion current using the Biomarker Wizard Program (Ciphergen, Fremont, CA, USA). The same application was used for peak detection and the determination of p- values. All univariate analyses were carried out using Ciphergen's ProteinChip Software v3.1.1 (Ciphergen, Fremont, CA, USA) and the Prism 5 software (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA). Results are expressed as mean.

Comparison of proteomics and microarray data

The endometrium samples of the mRNA microarray study which were used in this study revealed that 9 genes were differentially expressed in women with and without endometriosis. The molecular weights of these 9 representative proteins [13] were identified using a search via [21] and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

The representative molecular weights of the proteins identified in the mRNA Microarray study [13]

Protein

Mass in Da

Osteoglycin (OGN/4969)

33,922

Interleukin-6 signal transducer (IL6ST/3572)

isoform 1. 103,537

isoform 2. 37,499

Cytochrome P450, Family 2, Subfamily J, polypeptide 2 (CYP2J2/1573)

57,611

Carboxypeptidase E (CPE/1363)

53,151

Fibronectin 1 (FN1/2335)

different isoforms

1. 262,607

2. 71,943

3. 259,198

4. 222,944

5. 243,316

6. 240,477

7. 268,894

8. 252,793

9. 246,670

10. 239,608

11. 262,388

12. 221,274

13. 249,304

14. 249,384

15. 272,302

Synuclein, gamma (SNCG/6623)

13,331

BAI1-associated protein 2 (BAIAP2/10458)

different isoforms

1. 60,868

2. 59,014

3. 56,626

4. 57,359

5. 57,445

6. 57,430

Protocadherin 17 (PCDH17/27253)

different isoforms

1. 126,229

2. 96,570

Results/Discussion

In this study, we showed for the first time that combined analysis of one endometrial sample from women with and without endometriosis for both mRNA (Microarray) and protein fraction (SELDI-TOF MS) is possible after TRIzol extraction. Although we were able to compare these endometrial samples with respect to mRNA protein expression (microarray, [13]) and protein expression (proteomics, presented in this study), no corresponding proteins/genes were found.

In our mRNA microarray study [13] 8 genes were up-regulated and one gene was down-regulated in eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis compared to controls. Real-time PCR analysis of protocadherin-17 (PCDH17), protein tyrosine phosphatase, receptor type, R (PTPRR) and interleukin-6 signal transducer (IL6ST) expression validated the microarray findings [Table 1; [13]]. In our SELDI-TOF MS study 32 peaks were differentially expressed in endometrium of all women with endometriosis (stages I-IV) compared with all controls during the secretory phase [Table 2]. The proteins of interest detected by SELDI-TOF MS had a lower range (5-32 kDa) than the 9 genes detected by mRNA (representative protein range 33-272 kDa, [13]) with the exception of Synuclein, gamma which has a range of molecular weight of 13 kDa. This observation can be explained by the fact that protein activity often depends on post-translational modifications, which are not predictable from the level of the corresponding transcript [22], and confirm recent data [7] that eutopic endometrial protein expression, analyzed by 2D-differential in gel electrophoresis (DIGE) and mass spectrometry, does not correlate well with published gene array data.
Table 2

Mean signal intensities of various proteins and peptides comparing endometrium of women with a normal pelvis versus endometriosis (CM10 and IMAC)

CM10

   

CHCA

    

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

14653,82

0,034

0,795

1,468

down

16851,18

0,020

0,378

0,660

down

SPAhigh

    

8776,32

0,020

0,854

0,310

up

8898,40

0,045

4,530

1,935

up

10115,90

0,034

7,442

3,545

up

12186,64

0,026

0,300

0,132

up

12379,95

0,011

2,028

0,420

up

12683,46

0,026

0,988

0,444

up

13464,70

0,045

0,361

0,198

up

14479,03

0,011

0,282

0,116

up

17258,59

0,034

0,370

0,168

up

SPAlow

    

7662,79

0,045

0,247

0,362

down

8949,82

0,026

1,310

0,720

up

9177,29

0,020

0,391

1,381

down

9941,98

0,026

2,221

1,234

up

10084,76

0,045

1,807

1,096

up

11477,23

0,034

0,087

0,167

down

12323,14

0,011

0,652

0,215

up

12623,72

0,045

0,375

0,219

up

IMAC

   

CHCA

 

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

6299,93

0,011

0,319

0,470

down

9213,51

0,008

0,607

1,578

down

9266,22

0,011

0,933

1,440

down

9766,19

0,034

0,699

0,360

up

11163,87

0,020

0,527

0,245

up

11322,71

0,015

1,017

0,294

up

15446,04

0,004

0,586

0,108

up

SPAhigh

    

9532,42

0,026

3,217

13,993

down

9767,55

0,045

2,180

4,258

down

SPAlow

    

7832,06

0,020

0,205

0,369

down

8228,62

0,004

0,389

0,198

up

9190,05

0,015

0,420

1,406

down

9262,94

0,034

0,900

0,502

up

Although it is not clear why different mass peaks were observed in results comparing moderate-severe endometriosis (25 peaks) versus controls as opposed to results comparing minimal-mild endometriosis (23 peaks) versus controls [Table 3 and 4], it is possible that specific peptides or proteins are associated with specific stages of the disease. It is also not clear why the proteomic peaks identified in EM samples in our previous studies [5, 6] were not confirmed in the present study. In our first pilot study, [6] SELDI-TOF MS profiling of EM samples showed that the expression of proteins and peptides in the range of 2.8 -12.3 kDa was 3-24 times lower in endometrium of women with endometriosis compared with in women without endometriosis. In our second study [5], the combination of SELDI-TOF MS ProteinChip technology with bioinformatics allowed us to develop a diagnostic test for minimal-mild endometriosis based on a panel of 4 mass peaks (2 up-regulated: 90.675 kDa and 35.956 kDa and 2 down-regulated: 1.9 kDa and 2.5 kDa) with maximal sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%). We hypothesize that various factors may contribute to this lack of confirmation. Firstly, the protein extraction method was based on TRIzol (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad CA, USA) in the current study and on U9 lysis buffer (Ciphergen Biosystems, Fremont, CA) in our previous studies [5, 6]. Secondly, endometrial biological changes related to the menstrual cycle [23] may lead to differential protein expression in EM samples obtained on day 23-26 of the cycle (current study), compared to EM samples obtained during secretory phase (day 20-22) or secretory phase (day 16 - 26) in our previous studies [5, 6]. Indeed, EM histology on cycle days 23-26 is marked by decreasing secretion, decreasing stromal edema, increasing pseudodecidual reaction, stromal mitoses, and leucocytic infiltration, whereas endometrial secretion on cycle days 18-22 is maximal with a low proportion of stromal mitoses, and absence of pseudodecidual reaction or leucocytic infiltration [23]. Furthermore, endometrial mRNA expression has also been reported to be affected differently during different phases of the cycle [24]. Thirdly, it has to be acknowledged that proteomic techniques like SELDI-TOF MS still require standardization on the level of intra- and interassay variability. Therefore, we plan to repeat this study in a larger sample size including well defined endometrial samples obtained during menstrual, follicular and secretory phase, to validate the reproducibility of SELDI-TOF MS technology in these samples and to identify the protein peaks observed after proteomic analysis, which are expensive and labour intense requiring High-performance liquid chromatography or high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) and matrix assisted laser desorption ionization Time-of-Flight-Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS).
Table 3

Mean signal intensities of various proteins and peptides comparing endometrium of women with a normal pelvis versus stage I-II endometriosis (CM10 and IMAC)

CM10

    

SPAhigh

    

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

8898,40

0,036

4,475

1,935

up

10115,90

0,036

8,002

3,545

up

11656,79

0,036

6,899

2,721

up

11861,80

0,008

3,013

1,160

up

12186,64

0,014

0,386

0,132

up

12379,95

0,008

1,580

0,420

up

12847,34

0,023

0,668

0,228

up

13464,70

0,036

0,432

0,198

up

14659,37

0,023

2,197

1,049

up

SPAlow

    

7662,79

0,036

0,190

0,362

down

8078,54

0,022

0,118

0,339

down

8949,82

0,008

1,326

0,720

up

9941,98

0,008

2,382

1,234

up

10084,76

0,022

1,900

1,096

up

11801,42

0,014

0,875

0,432

up

11835,69

0,008

0,507

0,284

up

12323,14

0,008

0,727

0,215

up

15199,86

0,014

0,010

0,088

down

IMAC

    

CHCA

    

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

11163,87

0,022

0,469

0,245

up

11322,71

0,008

0,836

0,294

up

13815,44

0,014

3,281

1,411

up

15446,04

0,036

0,283

0,108

up

SPAlow

    

8228,62

0,014

0,429

0,198

up

Table 4

Mean signal intensities of various proteins and peptides comparing endometrium of women with a normal pelvis versus stage III-IV endometriosis (CM10 and IMAC)

CM10

    

CHCA

    

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

9774,53

0,014

0,596

1,098

down

14653,82

0,008

0,445

1,468

down

SPAhigh

    

14479,03

0,014

0,266

0,116

up

31793,90

0,036

1,596

0,142

up

SPAlow

    

8172,88

0,014

0,237

0,417

down

8388,16

0,036

0,126

0,362

down

9177,29

0,022

0,145

1,381

down

9399,55

0,036

0,180

0,415

down

9616,30

0,008

0,100

0,307

down

11477,23

0,014

0,058

0,167

down

12623,72

0,036

0,340

0,219

up

12787,28

0,036

0,036

0,132

down

15765,886

0,036

2,103

0,186

up

IMAC

    

CHCA

    

M/z

pvalue

Mean Disease

Mean Control

Up/down

6299,9273

0,008113117

0,23461589

0,47046801

down

9213,5098

0,01371083

0,362215739

1,57790751

down

9266,2242

0,022478873

0,695244394

1,44011883

down

9766,1943

0,035763767

0,764862056

0,35977499

up

15446,04

0,008

0,985

0,108

up

SPAhigh

    

9532,42

0,023

1,056

13,993

down

9767,55

0,036

1,436

4,258

down

13134,421

0,0137

0,23780214

0,53548423

down

SPAlow

    

7716,86

0,036

0,587

0,253

up

7832,06

0,036

0,204

0,369

down

8228,62

0,022

0,291

0,198

up

9190,0544

0,00811312

0,21041195

1,4064187

down

Conclusion

TRIzol treatment of secretory phase EM allowed both proteomic (SELDI-TOF MS) and mRNA microarray analysis of the same sample, but comparison of protein and mRNA expression in the same sample was not evident, probably due to post-translational modifications and/or technical aspects.

Abbreviations

EAM: 

energy absorbing molecules

EM: 

endometrium

(DIGE): 

2D-differential in gel electrophoresis

HPLC: 

High-performance liquid chromatography or high-pressure liquid chromatography

IMAC: 

immobilised metal affinity capture

MALDI-TOF/TOF-MS: 

matrix assisted laser desorption ionization Time-of-Flight-Mass Spectrometry

PBS IIC: 

Protein Biological System-IIC

CHCA: 

alpha-cyano-4-hydroxy cinnamic acid

SPA: 

sinapinic acid

SELDI-TOF-MS: 

Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionisation Time-of-Flight-Mass Spectrometry.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the Leuven University Council (Dienst Onderzoekscoordinatie, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium), the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO), Leuven - Belgium and K.U.Leuven Interfaculty Council for development Cooperation, Leuven, Belgium.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Leuven University Fertility Centre,University Hospital Gasthuisberg
(2)
Division of Reproductive Health and Biology, Institute of Primate Research, Karen
(3)
Biochemistry Section, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Campus Gasthuisberg
(4)
Department of Electrical Engineering, ESAT-SCD, K.U.Leuven

References

  1. Kennedy S, Bergqvist A, Chapron C, D'Hooghe T, Dunselman G, Greb R, Hummelshoj L, Prentice A, Saridogan E: ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2005, 20 (10): 2698-2704. 10.1093/humrep/dei135.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Giudice LC, Kao LC: Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004, 364 (9447): 1789-1799. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17403-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ding X, Wang L, Ren Y, Zheng W: Detection of mitochondrial biomarkers in eutopic endometria of endometriosis using surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Fertil Steril. 2010,Google Scholar
  4. Fowler PA, Tattum J, Bhattacharya S, Klonisch T, Hombach-Klonisch S, Gazvani R, Lea RG, Miller I, Simpson WG, Cash P: An investigation of the effects of endometriosis on the proteome of human eutopic endometrium: a heterogeneous tissue with a complex disease. Proteomics. 2007, 7 (1): 130-142. 10.1002/pmic.200600469.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Kyama CM, Mihalyi A, Gevaert O, Waelkens E, Simsa P, Van de Plas R, Meuleman C, De Moor B, D'Hooghe TM: Evaluation of endometrial biomarkers for semi-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010,Google Scholar
  6. Kyama CM, T'Jampens D, Mihalyi A, Simsa P, Debrock S, Waelkens E, Landuyt B, Meuleman C, Fulop V, Mwenda JM: ProteinChip technology is a useful method in the pathogenesis and diagnosis of endometriosis: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 2006, 86 (1): 203-209. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.12.024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Stephens AN, Hannan NJ, Rainczuk A, Meehan KL, Chen J, Nicholls PK, Rombauts LJ, Stanton PG, Robertson DM, Salamonsen LA: Post-translational modifications and protein-specific isoforms in endometriosis revealed by 2D DIGE. J Proteome Res. 2010, 9 (5): 2438-2449. 10.1021/pr901131p.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Have S, Fraser I, Markham R, Lam A, Matsumoto I: Proteomic analysis of protein expression in the eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2007, 1: 1243-1251. 10.1002/prca.200600743. tenView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Wang L, Zheng W, Ding XY, Yu JK, Jiang WZ, Zhang SZ: Identification biomarkers of eutopic endometrium in endometriosis using artificial neural networks and protein fingerprinting. Fertil Steril. 2009, 93 (7): 2460-2462. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.08.061.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhang H, Niu Y, Feng J, Guo H, Ye X, Cui H: Use of proteomic analysis of endometriosis to identify different protein expression in patients with endometriosis versus normal controls. Fertil Steril. 2006, 86 (2): 274-282. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.028.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burney RO, Talbi S, Hamilton AE, Vo KC, Nyegaard M, Nezhat CR, Lessey BA, Giudice LC: Gene expression analysis of endometrium reveals progesterone resistance and candidate susceptibility genes in women with endometriosis. Endocrinology. 2007, 148 (8): 3814-3826. 10.1210/en.2006-1692.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kao LC, Germeyer A, Tulac S, Lobo S, Yang JP, Taylor RN, Osteen K, Lessey BA, Giudice LC: Expression profiling of endometrium from women with endometriosis reveals candidate genes for disease-based implantation failure and infertility. Endocrinology. 2003, 144 (7): 2870-2881. 10.1210/en.2003-0043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sherwin JR, Sharkey AM, Mihalyi A, Simsa P, Catalano RD, D'Hooghe TM: Global gene analysis of late secretory phase, eutopic endometrium does not provide the basis for a minimally invasive test of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2008, 23 (5): 1063-1068. 10.1093/humrep/den078.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wu Y, Kajdacsy-Balla A, Strawn E, Basir Z, Halverson G, Jailwala P, Wang Y, Wang X, Ghosh S, Guo SW: Transcriptional characterizations of differences between eutopic and ectopic endometrium. Endocrinology. 2006, 147 (1): 232-246. 10.1210/en.2005-0426.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tokushige N, Markham R, Russell P, Fraser IS: Different types of small nerve fibers in eutopic endometrium and myometrium in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2007, 88 (4): 795-803. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.078.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Al-Jefout M, Dezarnaulds G, Cooper M, Tokushige N, Luscombe GM, Markham R, Fraser IS: Diagnosis of endometriosis by detection of nerve fibres in an endometrial biopsy: a double blind study. Hum Reprod. 2009, 24 (12): 3019-3024. 10.1093/humrep/dep275.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tokushige N, Markham R, Russell P, Fraser IS: High density of small nerve fibres in the functional layer of the endometrium in women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2006, 21 (3): 782-787. 10.1093/humrep/dei368.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bokor KC, Vercruysse L, Fassbender A, Gevaert O, Vodolazkaia A, De Moor B, Fülöp V, D'Hooghe T: Density of small diameter sensory nerve fibres in endometrium: a semi-invasive diagnostic test for minimal to mild endometriosis. Human Reproduction. 2009, 24 (12): 3025-3032. 10.1093/humrep/dep283.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. ASRM: Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification of endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril. 1997, 67 (5): 817-821. 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81391-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Chomczynski P: A reagent for the single-step simultaneous isolation of RNA, DNA and proteins from cell and tissue samples. Biotechniques. 1993, 15 (3): 532-534-536-537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Expert Protein Analysis System: [http://www.expasy.ch]
  22. Twyman RM: Principles of proteomics. 2007, Trowbridge: Cromwell pressGoogle Scholar
  23. Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J: Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil Steril. 1950, 1 (1): 3-25.Google Scholar
  24. Talbi S, Hamilton AE, Vo KC, Tulac S, Overgaard MT, Dosiou C, Le Shay N, Nezhat CN, Kempson R, Lessey BA: Molecular phenotyping of human endometrium distinguishes menstrual cycle phases and underlying biological processes in normo-ovulatory women. Endocrinology. 2006, 147 (3): 1097-1121. 10.1210/en.2005-1076.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fassbender et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement