Improving Replication in Endometrial Omics: Understanding the Influence of the Menstrual Cycle

Overview

Journal Int J Mol Sci

Publisher MDPI

Date 2025 Jan 25

PMID 39859570

Authors

Jessica Chung

Peter Adrian Rogers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The dynamic nature of human endometrial tissue presents unique challenges in analysis. Despite extensive research into endometrial disorders such as endometriosis and infertility, recent systematic reviews have highlighted concerning issues with the reproducibility of omics studies attempting to identify biomarkers. This review examines factors contributing to poor reproducibility in endometrial omics research. Hormonal fluctuations in the menstrual cycle lead to widespread molecular changes in the endometrium, most notably in gene expression profiles. In this review, we examine the variability in omics data due to the menstrual cycle and highlight the importance of accurate menstrual cycle dating for effective statistical modelling. The current standards of endometrial dating lack precision and we make the case for using molecular-based modelling methods to estimate menstrual cycle time for endometrium tissue samples. Additionally, we discuss statistical considerations such as confounding and interaction effects, as well as the importance of recording the detailed and accurate clinical information of patients. By addressing these methodological challenges, we aim to establish more robust and reproducible research practises, increasing the reliability of endometrial omics research and biomarker discovery.

References

. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, El Ghormli L, Rothman N . Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(6):434-42. PMC: 7713993. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh075. View

Walker E, McGrane M, Aplin J, Brison D, Ruane P . A systematic review of transcriptomic studies of the human endometrium reveals inconsistently reported differentially expressed genes. Reprod Fertil. 2023; . PMC: 10388686. DOI: 10.1530/RAF-22-0115. View

Suhorutshenko M, Kukushkina V, Velthut-Meikas A, Altmae S, Peters M, Magi R . Endometrial receptivity revisited: endometrial transcriptome adjusted for tissue cellular heterogeneity. Hum Reprod. 2018; 33(11):2074-2086. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey301. View

Altmae S, Koel M, Vosa U, Adler P, Suhorutsenko M, Laisk-Podar T . Meta-signature of human endometrial receptivity: a meta-analysis and validation study of transcriptomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):10077. PMC: 5577343. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10098-3. View

Goring H, Terwilliger J, Blangero J . Large upward bias in estimation of locus-specific effects from genomewide scans. Am J Hum Genet. 2001; 69(6):1357-69. PMC: 1235546. DOI: 10.1086/324471. View

Uimari O, Nazri H, Tapmeier T . Endometriosis and Uterine Fibroids (Leiomyomata): Comorbidity, Risks and Implications. Front Reprod Health. 2022; 3:750018. PMC: 9580755. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2021.750018. View

Camerer C, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho T, Huber J, Johannesson M . Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science. 2016; 351(6280):1433-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf0918. View

Noyes R, Hertig A, Rock J . Reprint of: Dating the Endometrial Biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2019; 112(4 Suppl1):e93-e115. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.08.079. View

10.

Altman D, Royston P . The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006; 332(7549):1080. PMC: 1458573. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080. View

11.

Lipecki J, Mitchell A, Muter J, Lucas E, Makwana K, Fishwick K . EndoTime: non-categorical timing estimates for luteal endometrium. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37(4):747-761. PMC: 8971653. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac006. View

12.

Jager K, Zoccali C, MacLeod A, Dekker F . Confounding: what it is and how to deal with it. Kidney Int. 2007; 73(3):256-60. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002650. View

13.

Lucas E, Dyer N, Murakami K, Lee Y, Chan Y, Grimaldi G . Loss of Endometrial Plasticity in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss. Stem Cells. 2015; 34(2):346-56. DOI: 10.1002/stem.2222. View

14.

Hoff J, Quigley M, Yen S . Hormonal dynamics at midcycle: a reevaluation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1983; 57(4):792-6. DOI: 10.1210/jcem-57-4-792. View

15.

Park S, Goldsmith L, Skurnick J, Wojtczuk A, Weiss G . Characteristics of the urinary luteinizing hormone surge in young ovulatory women. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88(3):684-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.045. View

16.

Carson D, Bagchi I, Dey S, Enders A, Fazleabas A, Lessey B . Embryo implantation. Dev Biol. 2000; 223(2):217-37. DOI: 10.1006/dbio.2000.9767. View

17.

Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

18.

Borah B, Nicholson W, Bradley L, Stewart E . The impact of uterine leiomyomas: a national survey of affected women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209(4):319.e1-319.e20. PMC: 4167669. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.017. View

19.

Hudson Q, Perricos A, Wenzl R, Yotova I . Challenges in uncovering non-invasive biomarkers of endometriosis. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2020; 245(5):437-447. PMC: 7082884. DOI: 10.1177/1535370220903270. View

20.

Devesa-Peiro A, Sebastian-Leon P, Pellicer A, Diaz-Gimeno P . Guidelines for biomarker discovery in endometrium: correcting for menstrual cycle bias reveals new genes associated with uterine disorders. Mol Hum Reprod. 2021; 27(4). PMC: 8063681. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaab011. View