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

  • 320
    views
  • 53
    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. Cell Biology
    Inês Sequeira
    Insight

    A combination of intermittent fasting and administering Wnt3a proteins to a bone injury can rejuvenate bone repair in aged mice.

    1. Cell Biology
    Shixuan Liu, Ceryl Tan ... Ran Kafri
    Research Advance

    Proliferating animal cells maintain a stable size distribution over generations despite fluctuations in cell growth and division size. Previously, we showed that cell size control involves both cell size checkpoints, which delay cell cycle progression in small cells, and size-dependent regulation of mass accumulation rates (Ginzberg et al., 2018). While we previously identified the p38 MAPK pathway as a key regulator of the mammalian cell size checkpoint (S. Liu et al., 2018), the mechanism of size-dependent growth rate regulation has remained elusive. Here, we quantified global rates of protein synthesis and degradation in cells of varying sizes, both under unperturbed conditions and in response to perturbations that trigger size-dependent compensatory growth slowdown. We found that protein synthesis rates scale proportionally with cell size across cell cycle stages and experimental conditions. In contrast, oversized cells that undergo compensatory growth slowdown exhibit a superlinear increase in proteasome-mediated protein degradation, with accelerated protein turnover per unit mass, suggesting activation of the proteasomal degradation pathway. Both nascent and long-lived proteins contribute to the elevated protein degradation during compensatory growth slowdown, with long-lived proteins playing a crucial role at the G1/S transition. Notably, large G1/S cells exhibit particularly high efficiency in protein degradation, surpassing that of similarly sized or larger cells in S and G2, coinciding with the timing of the most stringent size control in animal cells. These results collectively suggest that oversized cells reduce their growth efficiency by activating global proteasome-mediated protein degradation to promote cell size homeostasis.