Abstract

Endometriosis is a debilitating disease affecting 190 million women worldwide and the greatest single contributor to infertility. The most broadly accepted etiology is that uterine endometrial cells retrogradely enter the peritoneum during menses, implant and form invasive lesions in a process analogous to cancer metastasis. However, over 90% of women suffer retrograde menstruation, but only 10% develop endometriosis, and debate continues as to whether the underlying defect is endometrial or peritoneal. Processes implicated in invasion include: enhanced motility; adhesion to, and formation of gap junctions with, the target tissue. Endometrial stromal (ESCs) from 22 endometriosis patients at different disease stages show much greater invasiveness across mesothelial (or endothelial) monolayers than ESCs from 22 control subjects, which is further enhanced by the presence of EECs. This is due to enhanced responsiveness of endometriosis ESCs to the mesothelium, which induces migration and gap junction coupling. ESC-PMC gap junction coupling is shown to be required for invasion, while coupling between PMCs enhances mesothelial barrier breakdown.

Data availability

As described in the MDAR, primary data results are reported as Supplementary Tables for all figures, except for Fig. 5, where data points are shown directly on the plots.Patient data is described, but samples are not available for extrenal use based on patient consent limitationsDNA sequences used for silencing studies are commercially available, and the source listed

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chun-Wei Chen

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3318-0349
  2. Jeffery B Chavez

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ritikaa Kumar

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Virginia Arlene Go

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ahvani Pant

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anushka Jain

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Srikanth R Polusani

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Matthew J Hart

    Center for Innovative Drug Discovery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Randal D Robinson

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Maria Gaczynska

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Pawel Osmulski

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nameer B Kirma

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Bruce J Nicholson

    Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    For correspondence
    nicholsonb@uthscsa.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1649-7173

Funding

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD109027)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP160844)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR 002645)

  • Bruce J Nicholson

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP150600.)

  • Nameer B Kirma

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.NICHD supported the research project. CPRIT and NCATS supported key resources used extensively in the studies

Ethics

Human subjects: Explicit patient consent was obtained for all endometrial samples used in this study. All samples used in experiments were de-identified to the investigators. Approval for all protocols was obtained through the IRB at the Universoty of Texas Health San Antonio, IRB protocol # 20070728HR (8-31-23).

Copyright

© 2024, Chen et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Chun-Wei Chen
  2. Jeffery B Chavez
  3. Ritikaa Kumar
  4. Virginia Arlene Go
  5. Ahvani Pant
  6. Anushka Jain
  7. Srikanth R Polusani
  8. Matthew J Hart
  9. Randal D Robinson
  10. Maria Gaczynska
  11. Pawel Osmulski
  12. Nameer B Kirma
  13. Bruce J Nicholson
(2024)
Hypersensitive intercellular responses of endometrial stromal cells drive invasion in Endometriosis
eLife 13:e94778.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94778

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94778

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Senem Ntourmas, Martin Sachs ... Dominic B Bernkopf
    Research Article

    Activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway crucially depends on the polymerization of dishevelled 2 (DVL2) into biomolecular condensates. However, given the low affinity of known DVL2 self-interaction sites and its low cellular concentration, it is unclear how polymers can form. Here, we detect oligomeric DVL2 complexes at endogenous protein levels in human cell lines, using a biochemical ultracentrifugation assay. We identify a low-complexity region (LCR4) in the C-terminus whose deletion and fusion decreased and increased the complexes, respectively. Notably, LCR4-induced complexes correlated with the formation of microscopically visible multimeric condensates. Adjacent to LCR4, we mapped a conserved domain (CD2) promoting condensates only. Molecularly, LCR4 and CD2 mediated DVL2 self-interaction via aggregating residues and phenylalanine stickers, respectively. Point mutations inactivating these interaction sites impaired Wnt pathway activation by DVL2. Our study discovers DVL2 complexes with functional importance for Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Moreover, we provide evidence that DVL2 condensates form in two steps by pre-oligomerization via high-affinity interaction sites, such as LCR4, and subsequent condensation via low-affinity interaction sites, such as CD2.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Erick E Arroyo-Pérez, John C Hook ... Simon Ringgaard
    Research Article

    The coordination of cell cycle progression and flagellar synthesis is a complex process in motile bacteria. In γ-proteobacteria, the localization of the flagellum to the cell pole is mediated by the SRP-type GTPase FlhF. However, the mechanism of action of FlhF, and its relationship with the cell pole landmark protein HubP remain unclear. In this study, we discovered a novel protein called FipA that is required for normal FlhF activity and function in polar flagellar synthesis. We demonstrated that membrane-localized FipA interacts with FlhF and is required for normal flagellar synthesis in Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Pseudomonas putida, and Shewanella putrefaciens, and it does so independently of the polar localization mediated by HubP. FipA exhibits a dynamic localization pattern and is present at the designated pole before flagellar synthesis begins, suggesting its role in licensing flagellar formation. This discovery provides insight into a new pathway for regulating flagellum synthesis and coordinating cellular organization in bacteria that rely on polar flagellation and FlhF-dependent localization.