4.5 Article

Expression of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 in human trophoblasts of normal and preeclamptic placentas: Preliminary findings

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL AND MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 3, Pages 219-225

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2009.08.001

Keywords

Preeclampsia; IUGR; Placenta; MMP

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Here we test the hypothesis that the expression of matrix metalloproteinase 2 and 9 proteins is altered in preeclamptic placentas compared to placentas of normal pregnancy. Patients and methods: This case-control study includes preeclamptic placentas (40 women with preeclampsia) from a singleton pregnancy and placentas of normal pregnancies (control group, 40 women with uncomplicated pregnancy). The expression patterns of metalloproteinases 2 and 9 were examined using immunohistochemical staining methods. Results: Compared to uncomplicated pregnancy, the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction was high and the mean birth weight was markedly low in patients with preeclampsia. Both metalloproteinase 2 and 9 proteins were frequently and strongly expressed in the majority of placentas of uncomplicated pregnancies (control group). Metalloproteinase 9 expression was absent in the majority of the preeclamptic placentas. In the remaining cases of preeclamptic placentas, the expression of metalloproteinase 9 was weak. In contrast, a strong metalloproteinase 2 protein expression was seen in the majority of the preeclamptic placentas. Conclusions: These preliminary data demonstrate the expression of metalloproteinase 2 and 9 proteins in the placentas of uncomplicated pregnancies. The absence/reduced expression of metalloproteinase 9 in the preeclamptic placentas may be related to insufficient invasion of trophoblast, leading to superficial and unsuccessful placentation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available