米非司酮对恒河猴母胎界面细胞凋亡和凋亡分子p53表达的影响

胎盘形成过程中发生活跃的细胞增殖、迁移和凋亡等活动。p53蛋白是参与调节细胞周期和凋亡过程的原癌基因。本实验用原位末端标记、蛋白印迹和免疫组织化学方法研究正常和米非司酮(RU486)处理后恒河猴母胎界面绒毛和蜕膜组织细胞凋亡及p53蛋白表达。在正常妊娠的恒河猴母胎界面,凋亡信号主要集中在合体滋养层和细胞柱内的一些滋养层细胞;p53蛋白主要定位于细胞滋养层。在母体蜕膜中,也在部分基质细胞中检测到细胞凋亡和p53蛋白表达。经过RU486处理2d后,胎盘绒毛和母体蜕膜中凋亡细胞数都显著增加,绒毛中增加的凋亡信号集中于细胞滋养层。同时,RU486处理也导致绒毛细胞滋养层和蜕膜基质细胞中p53表达明显增加。以上结果提示,在正常妊娠中,生理性的细胞凋亡和p53表达可能是控制细胞滋养层细胞增殖、保持胎盘组织动态平衡的一个重要机制;RU486终止早孕的可能途径之一是促进母胎界面细胞凋亡,推测p53参与这一过程。     

妊娠兔胎盘细胞凋亡及凋亡相关基因Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化

以新西兰雌兔为动物模型,研究妊娠期间胎盘细胞凋亡及其凋亡调控蛋白Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化.基因组DNA凝胶电泳实验检测到妊娠中期和晚期胎盘基因组DNA中出现典型的凋亡特征——DNA梯带,而且DNA断裂值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为：0.14、0.49和1.43,与妊娠早期相比,妊娠中、晚期胎盘基因组DNA断裂值有显著性增加.TUNEL实验和活化caspase-3的免疫定位实验表明,在妊娠早期胎盘中存在细胞凋亡,而且在各妊娠期中细胞凋亡主要发生于合体滋养层.免疫印迹法分析表明,Bcl-2和Bax随妊娠的进行其表达量明显增加,Bax∶Bcl-2比值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为：0.89,0.91和1.25,呈增加趋势.实验结果说明,在兔正常妊娠中,胎盘合体滋养层细胞发生凋亡,且随妊娠的进行,凋亡细胞数量增多,胎盘细胞凋亡主要与细胞中Bax∶Bcl-2的比例相关.     

妊娠兔胎盘细胞凋亡及凋亡相关基因 Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化

以新西兰雌兔为动物模型,研究妊娠期间胎盘细胞凋亡及其凋亡调控蛋白Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化.基因组DNA凝胶电泳实验检测到妊娠中期和晚期胎盘基因组DNA中出现典型的凋亡特征--DNA梯带,而且DNA断裂值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为:0.14、0.49和1.43,与妊娠早期相比,妊娠中、晚期胎盘基因组DNA断裂值有显著性增加.TUNEL实验和活化caspase-3的免疫定位实验表明,在妊娠早期胎盘中存在细胞凋亡,而且在各妊娠期中细胞凋亡主要发生于合体滋养层.免疫印迹法分析表明,Bcl-2和Bax随妊娠的进行其表达量明显增加,Bax∶Bcl-2比值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为:0.89,0.91和1.25,呈增加趋势.实验结果说明,在兔正常妊娠中,胎盘合体滋养层细胞发生凋亡,且随妊娠的进行,凋亡细胞数量增多,胎盘细胞凋亡主要与细胞中Bax∶Bcl-2的比例相关.     

妊娠兔胎盘细胞凋亡及凋亡相关基因Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化

以新西兰雌兔为动物模型。研究妊娠期间胎盘细胞凋亡及其凋亡调控蛋白Bcl-2和Bax表达的动态变化,基因组DNA凝胶电泳实验检测到妊娠中期和晚期胎盘基因组DNA中出现典型的凋亡特征-DNA梯带,而且DNA断裂值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为：0.14,0.49和1.43,与妊娠早期相比,妊娠中,晚期胎盘基因组DNA断裂值有显著性增加,TUNEL实验和活化caspase-3的免疫定位实验表明,在妊娠早期胎盘中存在细胞凋亡,而且在各妊娠期中细胞凋亡主要发生于合体滋养层,免疫印迹法分析表明,Bcl-2和Bax随妊娠的进行其表达量明显增加,Bax:Bcl-2比值在妊娠早、中、晚期分别为：0.89,0.91和1.25,呈增加趋势,实验结果说明,在兔正常妊娠中,胎盘合体滋养层细胞发生凋亡,且随妊娠的进行,凋亡细胞数量增多,胎盘细胞凋亡主要与细胞中Bax:Bcl-2的比例相关。     

胎盘发生过程中的细胞凋亡

细胞凋亡是一种正常的生理现象,在胚泡着床过程中,伴随有大量细胞凋亡。研究表明,胎盘发生过程中的细胞凋亡,对调控子宫内膜基质细胞的蜕膜化和滋养层细胞的浸润以形成胎盘具有重要意义;另外,由Fas/FasL系统介导的细胞凋亡可能与母体对胎儿的免疫耐受性有关。本文主要评述细胞凋亡的一般通路以及胎盘发生过程中细胞凋亡的调控。     

高糖环境下beclin2介导的自噬增强绒毛膜滋养层细胞凋亡

目的探讨高糖对人绒毛膜滋养层细胞早期凋亡及自噬水平的影响。方法取足月妊娠的正常及妊娠期糖尿病(gestational diabetes mellitus,GDM)患者的胎盘组织,透射电镜观察滋养层细胞超微结构的改变。体外用不同浓度的含糖培养基培养滋养层细胞系HTR8/Svneo细胞24h,分为低糖组(1.57mmol/L或LG2 2.25mmol/L),正常对照组(5.57mmol/L)和高糖组(10.57mmol/L、15.57mmol/L或40.57mmol/L);流式细胞术检测细胞早期凋亡率;q-PCR检测细胞内beclin1、beclin2和ATG7等自噬相关基因的m RNA表达水平;Western blot检测Ⅱ型自噬标志蛋白微管相关蛋白1轻链3(LC3-II)和p62蛋白表达水平。结果透射电镜下可见GDM组滋养层细胞中存在自噬小体且空泡数目明显多于正常足月妊娠组,其游离面微绒毛出现明显倒覆及坍塌现象;在体外培养的滋养层细胞中,流式细胞术检测显示1.57mmol/L低糖组及40.57mmol/L高糖组较正常对照组HTR8/SVneo细胞的早期凋亡率均明显增加;q-PCR分析发现40.57mmol/L高糖组beclin2及ATG7 m RNA表达水平较正常对照组升高,beclin1 m RNA表达无差异;Western blot检测表明,与正常对照组比较,40.57mmol/L高糖组LC3-II蛋白表达水平升高,p62蛋白表达水平降低。结论高糖可通过beclin2介导的自噬信号途径增强滋养层细胞自噬水平进而导致细胞凋亡,并可能与不良的妊娠结局相关。     

人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基联合白藜芦醇对人滋养层细胞的作用

目的:探讨人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基联合白藜芦醇对人绒毛膜外滋养层细胞凋亡的影响。方法:通过CCK8细胞活力检测试剂盒测定白藜芦醇及其与人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基共同处理人绒毛膜外滋养层细胞HTR8后对细胞增殖及活性的影响;细胞迁移试验检测白藜芦醇和人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基对细胞迁移能力的影响;显微镜观察细胞形态,并用流式细胞仪检测细胞凋亡率的变化;Western blot检测白藜芦醇和人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基对细胞凋亡相关蛋白Bax、Bcl-2以及迁移相关蛋白MMP-9表达的影响。结果:白藜芦醇能够抑制HTR8细胞增殖,抑制细胞迁移及MMP-9蛋白的表达,改变Bax和Bcl-2蛋白表达诱导细胞凋亡的作用。而人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基能够逆转白藜芦醇对细胞的抑制作用。结论:人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基能够通过调控Bax、Bcl-2、MMP-9的蛋白表达逆转白藜芦醇对人绒毛膜外滋养层细胞的抑制作用。人脐带间充质干细胞条件培养基可作为潜在的治疗人绒毛膜外滋养层细胞功能障碍的临床手段,孕妇需要小心使用白藜芦醇。     

单增李斯特菌感染致妊娠失败的研究进展

单增李斯特菌(Listeria monocytogenes, LM)是一种在自然界广泛存在的食源性人兽共患病原菌,妊娠动物和孕妇感染后会导致妊娠失败。研究显示,LM感染后随着血液循环到达胎盘,在其毒力因子(内化素A、李斯特菌溶血素O、肌动蛋白聚合蛋白、InlP蛋白等)的作用下,首先靶定绒毛膜外滋养层细胞,再穿过合体滋养层细胞或绒毛细胞滋养层细胞到绒毛基质,再通过胎儿毛细血管感染胎儿;在此过程中,LM诱导的胎盘细胞凋亡、母胎界面细胞因子表达水平的改变和胎盘细胞炎性体的激活导致了妊娠失败。该文对上述问题就国内外最新研究进展进行综述和探讨。     

高糖诱导滋养层细胞内质网应激及凋亡

目的探讨高糖对滋养层细胞系HTR-8内质网应激及凋亡的影响。方法用不同浓度的含糖培养基培养人滋养层细胞系HTR-8细胞24小时,实时定量PCR检测细胞中内质网应激相关分子CHOP、GRP78、ATF6、XBP-1 mRNA的表达水平;Western blot检测CHOP、GRP78蛋白表达水平;流式细胞术检测细胞早期凋亡率。结果实时定量PCR结果显示,与正常血糖及渗透压对照组相比,高糖组CHOP及XBP-1 mRNA表达水平显著升高,GRP78 mRNA表达降低,ATF6表达无差异;Western blot检测显示,CHOP蛋白表达水平升高,GRP78蛋白表达水平降低;流式细胞术检测显示,高糖组细胞早期凋亡率增加。正常血糖组与渗透压对照组相比,CHOP、GRP78、ATF6、XBP-1 mRNA、蛋白表达水平及细胞早期凋亡率均无差异。结论高糖能激活滋养层细胞HTR-8内质网应激,并诱导细胞凋亡。     

热休克蛋白对细胞凋亡的调控作用

热休克蛋白属于细胞内分子伴侣蛋白,除涉及细胞内一些蛋白质分子构象和稳定性的调节之外,热休克蛋白对细胞应激、代谢、增殖以及凋亡等生理过程均具有重要的调控作用。研究表明热休克蛋白对细胞凋亡的调控机制是复杂的,可直接作用于与凋亡相关的蛋白质,也可以通过影响细胞信号传递而间接影响凋亡的发生。由于热休克蛋白对细胞凋亡的调控机制大多依赖于其分子伴侣功能,阻断热休克蛋白的伴侣功能已经成为研究药物诱导肿瘤细胞凋亡的重要靶点。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor