Abstract

Endometriosis is a debilitating disease affecting 190 million women worldwide and the greatest single contributor to infertility. The most broadly accepted etiology is that uterine endometrial cells retrogradely enter the peritoneum during menses, implant and form invasive lesions in a process analogous to cancer metastasis. However, over 90% of women suffer retrograde menstruation, but only 10% develop endometriosis, and debate continues as to whether the underlying defect is endometrial or peritoneal. Processes implicated in invasion include: enhanced motility; adhesion to, and formation of gap junctions with, the target tissue. Endometrial stromal (ESCs) from 22 endometriosis patients at different disease stages show much greater invasiveness across mesothelial (or endothelial) monolayers than ESCs from 22 control subjects, which is further enhanced by the presence of EECs. This is due to enhanced responsiveness of endometriosis ESCs to the mesothelium, which induces migration and gap junction coupling. ESC-PMC gap junction coupling is shown to be required for invasion, while coupling between PMCs enhances mesothelial barrier breakdown.

Data availability

As described in the MDAR, primary data results are reported as Supplementary Tables for all figures, except for Fig. 5, where data points are shown directly on the plots.Patient data is described, but samples are not available for extrenal use based on patient consent limitationsDNA sequences used for silencing studies are commercially available, and the source listed

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chun-Wei Chen

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3318-0349
  2. Jeffery B Chavez

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ritikaa Kumar

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Virginia Arlene Go

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ahvani Pant

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anushka Jain

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Srikanth R Polusani

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Matthew J Hart

    Center for Innovative Drug Discovery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Randal D Robinson

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Maria Gaczynska

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Pawel Osmulski

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nameer B Kirma

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Bruce J Nicholson

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    For correspondence
    nicholsonb@uthscsa.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1649-7173

Funding

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD109027)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP160844)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR 002645)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP150600.)

  • Nameer B Kirma

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.NICHD supported the research project. CPRIT and NCATS supported key resources used extensively in the studies

Ethics

Human subjects: Explicit patient consent was obtained for all endometrial samples used in this study. All samples used in experiments were de-identified to the investigators. Approval for all protocols was obtained through the IRB at the Universoty of Texas Health San Antonio, IRB protocol # 20070728HR (8-31-23).

Copyright

© 2024, Chen et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 503
    views
  • 69
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Chun-Wei Chen
  2. Jeffery B Chavez
  3. Ritikaa Kumar
  4. Virginia Arlene Go
  5. Ahvani Pant
  6. Anushka Jain
  7. Srikanth R Polusani
  8. Matthew J Hart
  9. Randal D Robinson
  10. Maria Gaczynska
  11. Pawel Osmulski
  12. Nameer B Kirma
  13. Bruce J Nicholson
(2024)
Hypersensitive intercellular responses of endometrial stromal cells drive invasion in Endometriosis
eLife 13:e94778.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94778

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94778

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Dharmendra Kumar Nath, Subash Dhakal, Youngseok Lee
    Research Advance

    Understanding how the brain controls nutrient storage is pivotal. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels are conserved from insects to humans. They serve in detecting environmental shifts and in acting as internal sensors. Previously, we demonstrated the role of TRPγ in nutrient-sensing behavior (Dhakal et al., 2022). Here, we found that a TRPγ mutant exhibited in Drosophila melanogaster is required for maintaining normal lipid and protein levels. In animals, lipogenesis and lipolysis control lipid levels in response to food availability. Lipids are mostly stored as triacylglycerol in the fat bodies (FBs) of D. melanogaster. Interestingly, trpγ deficient mutants exhibited elevated TAG levels and our genetic data indicated that Dh44 neurons are indispensable for normal lipid storage but not protein storage. The trpγ mutants also exhibited reduced starvation resistance, which was attributed to insufficient lipolysis in the FBs. This could be mitigated by administering lipase or metformin orally, indicating a potential treatment pathway. Gene expression analysis indicated that trpγ knockout downregulated brummer, a key lipolytic gene, resulting in chronic lipolytic deficits in the gut and other fat tissues. The study also highlighted the role of specific proteins, including neuropeptide DH44 and its receptor DH44R2 in lipid regulation. Our findings provide insight into the broader question of how the brain and gut regulate nutrient storage.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mykhailo Vladymyrov, Luca Marchetti ... Britta Engelhardt
    Tools and Resources

    The endothelial blood-brain barrier (BBB) strictly controls immune cell trafficking into the central nervous system (CNS). In neuroinflammatory diseases such as multiple sclerosis, this tight control is, however, disturbed, leading to immune cell infiltration into the CNS. The development of in vitro models of the BBB combined with microfluidic devices has advanced our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating the multistep T-cell extravasation across the BBB. A major bottleneck of these in vitro studies is the absence of a robust and automated pipeline suitable for analyzing and quantifying the sequential interaction steps of different immune cell subsets with the BBB under physiological flow in vitro. Here, we present the under-flow migration tracker (UFMTrack) framework for studying immune cell interactions with endothelial monolayers under physiological flow. We then showcase a pipeline built based on it to study the entire multistep extravasation cascade of immune cells across brain microvascular endothelial cells under physiological flow in vitro. UFMTrack achieves 90% track reconstruction efficiency and allows for scaling due to the reduction of the analysis cost and by eliminating experimenter bias. This allowed for an in-depth analysis of all behavioral regimes involved in the multistep immune cell extravasation cascade. The study summarizes how UFMTrack can be employed to delineate the interactions of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with the BBB under physiological flow. We also demonstrate its applicability to the other BBB models, showcasing broader applicability of the developed framework to a range of immune cell-endothelial monolayer interaction studies. The UFMTrack framework along with the generated datasets is publicly available in the corresponding repositories.