Endometrial Receptivity: Changes in Cell-Surface Morphology

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Ovulation and fertilization trigger embryonic development and endometrial differentiation by corpus luteum progesterone production. These two synchronous processes couple about 1 week later, when the blastocyst begins to implant in the now receptive endometrium (implantation window). Receptivity is a state of endometrial differentiation marked by a change in epithelial morphology: the hairy-like cell microvilli fuse to a single flower-like membrane projection called the ``pinopode.'' Scanning electron microscopy of sequential endometrial biopsies shows that pinopodes form briefly (1-2 days), and their numbers correlate with implantation. On average, the formation of pinopodes is earlier in stimulated (days 19-20) and later in artificial (days 21-22) compared with natural cycles (days 20-21). There is, however, a wide (up to 5 days) variation between women in the cycle days on which pinopodes form. These results suggest the existence of a narrow and discrete implantation window in humans. Detection of pinopodes is a potential clinical marker to assess endometrial receptivity.

REFERENCES

• 1 Hertig A T, Rock J, Adams E C. A description of 34 human ova within the first 17 days of development.  Am J Anat . 1956;  98 435-491
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Croxatto H B, Diaz S, Fuentealba B A, Croxatto H D, Carrilo D, Fabres C. Studies on the duration of egg transport in the human oviduct: I. The time interval between ovulation and egg recovery from the uterus in normal women.  Fertil Steril . 1972;  23 447-458
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Buster J E, Bustillo M, Rodi I A. Biologic and morphologic development of donated human ova recovered by nonsurgical uterine lavage.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1985;  153 211-217
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Formigli L, Formigli G, Roccio C. Donation of fertilized uterine ova to infertile women.  Fertil Steril . 1987;  47 162-165
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Psychoyos A. Endocrine control of egg implantation. In: Greep RO, Astwood EB, eds. Handbook of Physiology, Vol II, Endocrinology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1973: 187-215
  Google Scholar
• 6 Psychoyos A. Hormonal control of uterine receptivity for nidation.  J Reprod Fertil . 1976;  25(suppl) 17-28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Potts M, Psychoyos A. Évolution de l'ultrastructure des relations ovoendométriales sous l'influence de l'oestrogène, chez la Ratte en retard expérimental de nidation.  C R Acad Sci Paris . 1967;  264 370-373
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Enders A D, Nelson D M. Pinocytotic activity of the uterus of the rat.  Am J Anat . 1973;  138 277-300
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Psychoyos A, Mandon P. Étude de la surface de l'épithélium utérin au microscope électronique à balayage. Observation chez la ratte au 4ème et 5ème jours de la gestation.  C R Acad Sci Paris . 1971;  272 2723-2729
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Sarantis L, Roche D, Psychoyos A. Displacement of receptivity for nidation in the rat by the progesterone antagonist RU 486: a scanning electron microscopy study.  Hum Reprod . 1988;  3 251-255
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Martel D, Malet C, Gautray J P, Psychoyos A. Surface changes of the luminal uterine epithelium during the human menstrual cycle: a scanning electron microscopic study. In: de Brux J, Mortel R, Gautray JP, eds. The Endometrium: Hormonal Impacts New York: Plenum 1981: 15-29
  Google Scholar
• 12 Psychoyos A, Nikas G. Uterine pinopodes as markers of uterine receptivity.  Assist Reprod Rev . 1994;  4 26-32
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Nikas G. Cell-surface morphological events relevant to human implantation.  Hum Reprod . 1999;  14(suppl 2) 37-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Nikas G, Makrigiannakis A, Hovatta O, Jones Jr W H. Surface morphology of the human endometrium: basic and clinical aspects.  Ann N Y Acad Sci . 2000;  900 316-324
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Nikas G, Develioglu O H, Toner J P, Jones Jr W H. Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles.  Hum Reprod . 1999;  14 787-792
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Develioglu O H, Hsiu J G, Nikas G, Toner J P, Oehninger S, Jones Jr W H. Endometrial estrogen and progesterone receptor and pinopode expression in stimulated cycles in oocyte donation.  Fertil Steril . 1999;  71 1040-1047
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Nikas G. Pinopodes as markers of endometrial receptivity in clinical practice.  Hum Reprod . 1999;  14(suppl 2) 99-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Nikas G, Drakakis P, Loutradis D. Uterine pinopodes as markers of the ``nidation window'' in cycling women receiving exogenous oestradiol and progesterone.  Hum Reprod . 1995;  10 1208-1213
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Nikas G, Reddy N, Winston R ML. Implantation correlates highly with the expression of uterine pinopodes in ovum recipients under HRT: a preliminary study. Abstract (FR21) at the IX World Congress in Human Reproduction, Philadelphia, May 29-June 1, 1996
  Google Scholar
• 20 Nikas G, Garcia-Velasco J, Pellicer A, Simon C. Assessment of uterine receptivity and timing of embryo transfer using the detection of pinopodes [abstract].  Hum Reprod . 1997;  12(suppl) 1-69
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Lopata A. Implantation of the human embryo.  Hum Reprod . 1996;  11(suppl) 175-184
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Kolb A B, Najmabadi S, Paulson R J. Ultrastractural characteristics of the luteal phase endometrium in donors undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.  Fertil Steril . 1997;  67 625-630
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Psychoyos A. Uterine receptivity for nidation.  Ann N Y Acad Sci . 1986;  476 36-42
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Murphy C R, Rogers P AW, Hosie M J, Leeton J, Beaton L. Tight junctions of human uterine epithelial cells change during the menstrual cycle: a morphometric study.  Acta Anat . 1992;  144 36-38
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Bentin-Ley U, Siogren A, Nilsson L, Hamberger L, Larsen J F, Horn T. Presence of uterine pinopodes at the embryo endometrial interface during human implantation in-vitro.  Hum Reprod . 1999;  14 515-520
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Develioglu O H, Nikas G, Hsiu J G, Toner J P, Oehninger S, Jones Jr W H. Assessment of endometrial pinopodes by light microscopy.  Fertil Steril . 2000;  74 763-770
  PubMedGoogle Scholar