4.7 Article

Expression of interleukin-8 and monocyte chemotactic protein 1 in women with endometriosis

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 687-693

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.067

关键词

Endometriosis; endometrium; immunohistochemistry; interleukin-8; monocyte chemotactic protein 1

资金

  1. Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Institution (TUBITAK) training award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the expression and localization of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1) in women with and without endometriosis. Design: Comparative immunohistochemical study. Setting: Academic medical center. Patient(s): Ectopic (n = 24) and homologous eutopic endometrium (n = 24) from women with endometriosis and endometrium from women without endometriosis (n = 27) were used for immunohistochemical analysis of IL-8 and MCP-1. Intervention(s): Tissue sections were immunostained with antihuman IL-8 and MCP-1 antibodies. Main Outcome Measure(s): Microscopic evaluation to assess the presence and localization of IL-8 and MCP-1 throughout the menstrual cycle in both eutopic endometrial and endometriotic tissues of women with endometriosis and comparison with normal endometrium. Result(s): In normal endometrium. secretory phase samples expressed higher levels of epithelial IL-8 than in proliferative phase samples. Epithelial MCP-1 expression was similar in both proliferative and secretory phases. Proliferative phase samples showed higher epithelial IL-8 and MCP-1 expressions in eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis compared with that of normal women. Immunoreactivities of both chemokines were significantly increased in the epithelial cells of ectopic endometrial tissues compared with those of normal endometrium. Conclusion(s): These findings Suggest that IL-8 and MCP-1 may be involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:687-93. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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