4.7 Article

Leukocyte activation in the decidua of chromosomally normal and abnormal fetuses from women with recurrent abortion

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 949-955

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.949

关键词

activation markers; decidua; leukocytes; recurrent spontaneous abortion; trisomy 16

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of our continuing programme to investigate immunological causes of unexplained recurrent pregnancy losses, we studied subpopulations of white blood cells and their activation status in decidua of women with a history of recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), We differentiated specifically between normal karyotyped male fetuses and abnormal karyotyped fetuses with trisomy 16 because trisomy 16 is not compatible with life and is thus a noncontroversial cause of spontaneous miscarriage. Leukocytes were counted in paraffin-embedded decidua after immunohistological staining for CD45 (LCA), CD3, CD56, CD68, CD69 and CD25, Numbers of activated versus non-activated T lymphocytes, NK cells and macrophages were compared in decidua from women with: (i) unexplained RSA who had a normal male karyotype (n = 17) miscarriage; (ii) unexplained RSA who had a trisomy 16 (n = 21) miscarriage; and (iii) normal gestationally age-matched first trimester pregnancies following elective termination procedures (n = 20). Significantly more activated leukocytes were detected in the decidua of women with unexplained RSA who had a normal male karyotype compared to the other groups (P < 0.0001). In addition, numbers of cells comprising the major leukocyte subpopulation, CD56 + NK cells, appeared reduced in the decidua of women with unexplained RSA compared to decidua from women having elective terminations. Increased numbers of activated leukocytes in the decidua of women with a history of unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss who had a normal karyotyped pregnancy provide evidence that cellular immunity may be involved in unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss,

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

4.7
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