Cited by 110Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementGynecological conditions and treatments

Histological and Immunohistochemical Characterization of the Similarity and Difference Between Ovarian Endometriomas and Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis

Liu, Xishi, Zhang, Qi, Guo, Sun-Wei·2018·Reproductive Sciences

Abstract

Ovarian endometrioma (OMA) and deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) have long been recognized to have different histology and, as such, postulated to be 2 separate disease entities. Few studies, however, have attempted to elucidate the causes for their differences. Making use of ectopic endometrial tissue samples from 25 and 20 women with OMA and DIE, respectively, and control endometrial tissue samples from 25 women without endometriosis, we conducted an immunohistochemical analysis to evaluate the expression of a group of carefully chosen markers for epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation (FMT), smooth muscle metaplasia (SMM), fibrosis, vascularity, hormonal receptors, and proteins involved in epigenetic modifications. We found that both OMA and DIE lesions exhibited the same cellular changes consistent with EMT, FMT, SMM, and fibrosis as already shown in animal models. Compared to OMA, DIE lesions underwent more thorough and extensive EMT, FMT, and SMM and, consequently, displayed significantly higher fibrotic content but less vascularity. The 2 conditions also showed different expression levels of hormonal receptors. Both OMA and DIE lesions, especially the latter, showed significantly higher staining of enhancer of zeste homolog 2, H3K9me3, and H3K27me3 than that of control endometrium, suggesting progressive epigenetic changes concomitant with cellular ones. Finally, proteins that are known to be involved in fibrogenesis, such as thymocyte differentiation antigen 1 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ , were also aberrantly expressed under both conditions. The many similarities shared by both OMA and DIE indicate that the 2 conditions may actually share the same pathogenesis/pathophysiology. Their differences, however, suggest that the source of these differences may result from the different lesional microenvironments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1933719117718275

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The vast heterogeneity of endometriosis appears to be determined mostly by the lesional microenvironments.

    “As we showed previously, however, the vast heterogeneity of endometriosis appears to be determined mostly by the lesional microenvironments80.”
  • Compared with OE, DE lesions appeared to have gone through EMT, FMT, and SMM more thoroughly and extensively, and exhibited significantly more fibromuscular tissues yet reduced cellularity and vascularity.

    “we recently found that, compared with OE, DE lesions appeared to have gone through EMT, FMT, and SMM more thoroughly and more extensively, and, accordingly, exhibited significantly more fibromuscular tissues yet reduced cellularity and vascularity28.”
  • Proteins known to be involved in fibrogenesis, such as THY-1 and PPAR-g, were aberrantly expressed in these conditions.

    “Proteins that are known to be involved in fibrogenesis, such as THY-1 and PPAR-g, were also aberrantly expressed in these conditions.”

    From Pathogenesis of deep endometriosis (2017) · cites this paper as [49]

  • These conditions may share the same pathogenesis/pathophysiology.

    “They showed that these conditions may share the same pathogenesis/pathophysiology.”

    From Pathogenesis of deep endometriosis (2017) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, X., Zhang, Q., & Guo, S.-W.
Affiliations
Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Xishi
Venue
Reproductive Sciences
Published
2018-03
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
329-340
ISSN
  • 1933-7191 (ISSN-L)
  • 1933-7205
OpenAlex
W2738561245
Cited by
110
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3
FWCI
12.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Reproductive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81370695, 81471434, 81530040, 81671436)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometrioma, deep infiltrating endometriosis, ectopic endometrium, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation, fibrosis, vascularity, hormone receptors, epigenetic modifications, H3K9me3, H3K27me3, TGF-β1, PPARγ, endometriosis pathogenesis
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Endometrium, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Ovarian Diseases, Peritoneal Diseases, Biomarkers, Cell Transdifferentiation, Young Adult, Myofibroblasts, Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review