Cargando…
Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation
BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure is a critical issue in IVF‐ET treatment. Successful embryo implantation needs appropriate molecular and cellular communications between embryo and uterus. Rodent models have been used intensively to understand these mechanisms. METHODS: The molecular and ce...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6613011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31312101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12280 |
_version_ | 1783432981483880448 |
---|---|
author | Fukui, Yamato Hirota, Yasushi Matsuo, Mitsunori Gebril, Mona Akaeda, Shun Hiraoka, Takehiro Osuga, Yutaka |
author_facet | Fukui, Yamato Hirota, Yasushi Matsuo, Mitsunori Gebril, Mona Akaeda, Shun Hiraoka, Takehiro Osuga, Yutaka |
author_sort | Fukui, Yamato |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure is a critical issue in IVF‐ET treatment. Successful embryo implantation needs appropriate molecular and cellular communications between embryo and uterus. Rodent models have been used intensively to understand these mechanisms. METHODS: The molecular and cellular mechanisms of embryo implantation were described by referring to the previous literature investigated by us and others. The studies using mouse models of embryo implantation were mainly cited. RESULTS: Progesterone (P(4)) produced by ovarian corpus luteum provides the uterus with receptivity to the embryo, and uterine epithelial growth arrest and stromal proliferation, what we call uterine proliferation‐differentiation switching (PDS), take place in the peri‐implantation period before embryo attachment. Uterine PDS is a hallmark of uterine receptivity, and several genes such as HAND2 and BMI1, control uterine PDS by modulating P(4)‐PR signaling. As the next implantation process, embryo attachment onto the luminal epithelium occurs. This process is regulated by FOXA2‐LIF pathway and planar cell polarity signaling. Then, the luminal epithelium at the embryo attachment site detaches from the stroma, which enables trophoblast invasion. This process of embryo invasion is regulated by HIF2α in the stroma. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that embryo implantation contains multistep processes regulated by specific molecular pathways. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6613011 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66130112019-07-16 Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation Fukui, Yamato Hirota, Yasushi Matsuo, Mitsunori Gebril, Mona Akaeda, Shun Hiraoka, Takehiro Osuga, Yutaka Reprod Med Biol Mini Reviews BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure is a critical issue in IVF‐ET treatment. Successful embryo implantation needs appropriate molecular and cellular communications between embryo and uterus. Rodent models have been used intensively to understand these mechanisms. METHODS: The molecular and cellular mechanisms of embryo implantation were described by referring to the previous literature investigated by us and others. The studies using mouse models of embryo implantation were mainly cited. RESULTS: Progesterone (P(4)) produced by ovarian corpus luteum provides the uterus with receptivity to the embryo, and uterine epithelial growth arrest and stromal proliferation, what we call uterine proliferation‐differentiation switching (PDS), take place in the peri‐implantation period before embryo attachment. Uterine PDS is a hallmark of uterine receptivity, and several genes such as HAND2 and BMI1, control uterine PDS by modulating P(4)‐PR signaling. As the next implantation process, embryo attachment onto the luminal epithelium occurs. This process is regulated by FOXA2‐LIF pathway and planar cell polarity signaling. Then, the luminal epithelium at the embryo attachment site detaches from the stroma, which enables trophoblast invasion. This process of embryo invasion is regulated by HIF2α in the stroma. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that embryo implantation contains multistep processes regulated by specific molecular pathways. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6613011/ /pubmed/31312101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12280 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Reproductive Medicine and Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Mini Reviews Fukui, Yamato Hirota, Yasushi Matsuo, Mitsunori Gebril, Mona Akaeda, Shun Hiraoka, Takehiro Osuga, Yutaka Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title | Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title_full | Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title_fullStr | Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title_full_unstemmed | Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title_short | Uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: Multistep processes in embryo implantation |
title_sort | uterine receptivity, embryo attachment, and embryo invasion: multistep processes in embryo implantation |
topic | Mini Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6613011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31312101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12280 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fukuiyamato uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT hirotayasushi uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT matsuomitsunori uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT gebrilmona uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT akaedashun uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT hiraokatakehiro uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation AT osugayutaka uterinereceptivityembryoattachmentandembryoinvasionmultistepprocessesinembryoimplantation |