4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Alteration of Vaginal Elastin Metabolism in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 115, 期 5, 页码 953-961

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181da7946

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD045590-05, R01 HD045590, R01 HD 045590] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To compare elastin metabolism in the vagina of women with and without pelvic organ prolapse and to define the regulation of this process by hormone therapy (HT). METHODS: Eighty-seven histologically confirmed full-thickness vaginal biopsies were procured from study participants at time of surgery. Premenopausal women with no prolapse served as controls. Women with prolapse were divided into three groups: premenopausal, postmenopausal not on HT, and postmenopausal on HT. The epithelium was excised leaving the subepithelium, muscularis, and adventitia for analyses. The elastin precursor, tropoelastin, was measured by immunoblotting and mature elastin protein via a desmosine cross-link radioimmunoassay. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)-2 and -9 were quantitated by gelatin zymography. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Tropoelastin (432%), mature elastin (55%), proMMP-9 (90%), and active MMP-9 (106%) were increased in women with prolapse relative to those in the control group while active MMP-2 (41%) was decreased. Comparison of tropoelastin and mature elastin values obtained from the same women showed them to be independently regulated (r=0.19). Interestingly, the high-est amount of both proteins occurred in postmenopausal patients not on HT. CONCLUSION: Elastin metabolism is altered in the vagina of women with prolapse relative to those in the control group, suggesting that vaginal tissue is rapidly remodeling in response to mechanical stretch. We found that elastin levels are highest in the absence of hormones. (Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 953-61)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据