The impact of previous live births on peripheral and uterine natural killer cells in patients with recurrent miscarriage.
Abortion, Habitual
/ blood
Adult
CD3 Complex
/ immunology
CD56 Antigen
/ immunology
Female
Humans
Killer Cells, Natural
/ immunology
Leukocyte Common Antigens
/ immunology
Leukocyte Count
Live Birth
Parity
/ immunology
Pregnancy
Prospective Studies
Receptors, IgG
/ immunology
Risk Factors
Uterus
/ immunology
Endometrium
Immune status
Immunolog
Natural killer cells
Recurrent miscarriage
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Aug 2019
31 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2019
accepted:
16
08
2019
entrez:
2
9
2019
pubmed:
2
9
2019
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peripheral and uterine natural killer cells (pNK and uNK cells) are key players in the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy and are disturbed in patients with recurrent miscarriage (RM). Different immunologic risk factors have been proposed between patients with primary RM (pRM, no previous live birth) and secondary RM (sRM, ≥ 1 previous live birth). However, so far, the study populations mainly consisted of small subgroups. Therefore, we aimed to analyse pNK and uNK cells in a large, well defined study population within a prospective study. In total, n = 575 RM patients (n = 393 pRM, n = 182 sRM) were screened according to a standard protocol for established risk factors as well as pNK and uNK cells. Peripheral blood levels of CD45 Patients with pRM and ipRM showed significant higher absolute numbers and percentages of pNK cells compared to sRM and isRM patients (pRM/ipRM vs sRM/isRM, mean ± SD /μl: 239.1 ± 118.7/244.9 ± 112.9 vs 205.1 ± 107.9/206.0 ± 105.6, p = 0.004/ p = 0.009; mean ± SD %: 12.4 ± 5.5/12.8 ± 5.4 vs 11.1 ± 4.6/11.1 ± 4.3, p = 0.001; p = 0.002). Only patients with isRM showed significantly higher uNK levels compared to patients with ipRM (mean ± SD /mm The demonstrated differences in pNK and uNK cells in RM patients depending on previous live birth might indicate differences in NK cell recruitment and potentially different underlying immune disorders between pRM and sRM. As there is an overlap in the distribution of the NK cell results, further studies with focus on NK cell function are needed in order to clearly identify RM patients with distinct immune abnormalities. The clinical relevance of our findings should be interpreted cautiously until specificity and sensitivity are further evaluated.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Peripheral and uterine natural killer cells (pNK and uNK cells) are key players in the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy and are disturbed in patients with recurrent miscarriage (RM). Different immunologic risk factors have been proposed between patients with primary RM (pRM, no previous live birth) and secondary RM (sRM, ≥ 1 previous live birth). However, so far, the study populations mainly consisted of small subgroups. Therefore, we aimed to analyse pNK and uNK cells in a large, well defined study population within a prospective study.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, n = 575 RM patients (n = 393 pRM, n = 182 sRM) were screened according to a standard protocol for established risk factors as well as pNK and uNK cells. Peripheral blood levels of CD45
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients with pRM and ipRM showed significant higher absolute numbers and percentages of pNK cells compared to sRM and isRM patients (pRM/ipRM vs sRM/isRM, mean ± SD /μl: 239.1 ± 118.7/244.9 ± 112.9 vs 205.1 ± 107.9/206.0 ± 105.6, p = 0.004/ p = 0.009; mean ± SD %: 12.4 ± 5.5/12.8 ± 5.4 vs 11.1 ± 4.6/11.1 ± 4.3, p = 0.001; p = 0.002). Only patients with isRM showed significantly higher uNK levels compared to patients with ipRM (mean ± SD /mm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The demonstrated differences in pNK and uNK cells in RM patients depending on previous live birth might indicate differences in NK cell recruitment and potentially different underlying immune disorders between pRM and sRM. As there is an overlap in the distribution of the NK cell results, further studies with focus on NK cell function are needed in order to clearly identify RM patients with distinct immune abnormalities. The clinical relevance of our findings should be interpreted cautiously until specificity and sensitivity are further evaluated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31472670
doi: 10.1186/s12958-019-0514-7
pii: 10.1186/s12958-019-0514-7
pmc: PMC6717647
doi:
Substances chimiques
CD3 Complex
0
CD56 Antigen
0
Receptors, IgG
0
Leukocyte Common Antigens
EC 3.1.3.48
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
72Références
Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2727-30
pubmed: 10548610
Placenta. 2000 Sep;21(7):693-702
pubmed: 10985973
Clin Chem. 2001 Jan;47(1):137-9
pubmed: 11148193
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Sep;945:138-40
pubmed: 11708467
Transfusion. 2001 Dec;41(12):1524-30
pubmed: 11778067
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2002 Apr;47(4):196-202
pubmed: 12069386
Fertil Steril. 2003 Aug;80(2):368-75
pubmed: 12909501
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Nov;48(11):3237-41
pubmed: 14613289
Fertil Steril. 2004 Jan;81(1):19-25
pubmed: 14711538
Eur J Haematol. 2004 Mar;72(3):203-12
pubmed: 14962239
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005 Apr;271(4):350-4
pubmed: 15221323
Hum Reprod Update. 2004 Nov-Dec;10(6):497-502
pubmed: 15319378
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;193(4):1472-7
pubmed: 16202742
Fertil Steril. 2005 Oct;84(4):980-4
pubmed: 16213853
J Exp Med. 2006 Sep 4;203(9):2165-75
pubmed: 16923853
J Immunol. 2007 May 1;178(9):5949-56
pubmed: 17442979
Hum Reprod. 2007 Aug;22(8):2208-13
pubmed: 17656418
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Feb 15;167(4):480-4
pubmed: 18048378
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Dec;17(6):814-9
pubmed: 19079966
Am J Pathol. 2009 May;174(5):1959-71
pubmed: 19349361
Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):52-8
pubmed: 19819893
J Reprod Immunol. 2011 Mar;88(2):156-64
pubmed: 21334072
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun;26(6):1331-7
pubmed: 21471157
Hum Reprod. 2011 Aug;26(8):1971-80
pubmed: 21613313
Hum Immunol. 2012 May;73(5):480-5
pubmed: 22426256
Blood. 1990 Dec 15;76(12):2421-38
pubmed: 2265240
FASEB J. 2012 Dec;26(12):4876-85
pubmed: 22919072
Biol Res Nurs. 2014 Jul;16(3):320-6
pubmed: 23956351
Hypertension. 2013 Dec;62(6):1046-54
pubmed: 24060885
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):429-38
pubmed: 24285824
Immunobiology. 2014 Jul;219(7):487-96
pubmed: 24661720
J Clin Invest. 2014 May;124(5):1872-9
pubmed: 24789879
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2015 Feb;73(2):175-84
pubmed: 25339113
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2015 Jul;74(1):1-11
pubmed: 25472023
Immune Netw. 2014 Dec;14(6):289-95
pubmed: 25550695
Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Mar 10;16(3):5510-6
pubmed: 25764161
Hum Reprod. 2015 Jul;30(7):1526-31
pubmed: 25954038
Hum Reprod. 2015 Jul;30(7):1519-25
pubmed: 25954039
J Reprod Immunol. 2015 Aug;110:54-60
pubmed: 26004035
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2016 Mar;29(1):65-75
pubmed: 26657164
J Reprod Immunol. 2017 Feb;119:9-14
pubmed: 27865124
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2017 Oct;78(4):null
pubmed: 28639334
Biomed Pharmacother. 2017 Nov;95:412-418
pubmed: 28863381
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;217(6):680.e1-680.e6
pubmed: 28935491
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jul 26;:null
pubmed: 31348822
Clin Exp Immunol. 1985 Oct;62(1):121-7
pubmed: 3864569
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 23;93(2):705-8
pubmed: 8570620
J Immunol. 1996 May 15;156(10):4027-34
pubmed: 8621945
Hum Reprod Update. 1996 Jul-Aug;2(4):271-93
pubmed: 9080226
J Exp Med. 1998 Jan 19;187(2):217-23
pubmed: 9432979
Clin Chem. 1999 Feb;45(2):184-8
pubmed: 9931039