Menstrual fluid endometrial stem/progenitor cell and supernatant protein content: cyclical variation and indicative range

STUDY QUESTION: Does natural variation exist in the endometrial stem/progenitor cell and protein composition of menstrual fluid across menstrual cycles in women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Limited variation exists in the percentage of some endometrial stem/progenitor cell types and abundance of selected proteins in menstrual fluid within and between a cohort of women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Menstrual fluid is a readily available biofluid that can represent the endometrial environment, containing endometrial stem/progenitor cells and protein factors. It is unknown whether there is natural variation in the cellular and protein content across menstrual cycles of individual women, which has significant implications for the use of menstrual fluid in research and clinical applications. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Menstrual fluid was collected from 11 non-pregnant females with regular menstrual cycles. Participants had not used hormonal medications in the previous 3 months. Participants collected menstrual fluid samples from up to five cycles using a silicone menstrual cup worn on Day 2 of menstrual bleeding. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Menstrual fluid samples were centrifuged to separate soluble proteins and cells. Cells were depleted of red blood cells and CD45(+) leucocytes. Menstrual fluid-derived endometrial stem/progenitor cells were characterized using multicolour flow cytometry including markers for endometrial stem/progenitor cells N-cadherin (NCAD) and stage-specific embryonic antigen-1 (SSEA-1) (for endometrial epithelial progenitor cells; eEPC), and sushi domain containing-2 (SUSD2) (for endometrial mesenchymal stem cells; eMSC). The clonogenicity of menstrual fluid-derived endometrial cells was assessed using colony forming unit assays. Menstrual fluid supernatant was analyzed using a custom magnetic Luminex assay. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Endometrial stem/progenitor cells are shed in menstrual fluid and demonstrate clonogenic properties. The intraparticipant agreement for SUSD2(+) menstrual fluid-derived eMSC (MF-eMSC), SSEA-1(+) and NCAD+SSEA-1(+) MF-eEPC, and stromal clonogenicity were moderate-good (intraclass correlation; ICC: 0.75, 0.56, 0.54 and 0.52, respectively), indicating limited variability across menstrual cycles. Endometrial inflammatory and repair proteins were detectable in menstrual fluid supernatant, with five of eight (63%) factors demonstrating moderate intraparticipant agreement (secretory leukocyte protein inhibitor (SLPI), lipocalin-2 (NGAL), lactoferrin, follistatin-like 1 (FSTL1), human epididymis protein-4 (HE4); ICC ranges: 0.57-0.69). Interparticipant variation was limited for healthy participants, with the exception of key outliers of which some had self-reported menstrual pathologies. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. There are no OMICS or other data sets relevant to this study. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitations to this research relate to the difficulty of obtaining menstrual fluid samples across multiple menstrual cycles in a consistent manner. Several participants could only donate across <3 cycles and the duration of wearing the menstrual cup varied between 4 and 6 h within and between women. Due to the limited sample size used in this study, wider studies involving multiple consecutive menstrual cycles and a larger cohort of women will be required to fully determine the normal range of endometrial stem/progenitor cell and supernatant protein content of menstrual fluid. Possibility for selection bias and true representation of the population of women should also be considered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Menstrual fluid is a reliable source of endometrial stem/progenitor cells and related endometrial proteins with diagnostic potential. The present study indicates that a single menstrual sample may be sufficient in characterizing a variety of cellular and protein parameters across women's menstrual cycles. The results also demonstrate the potential of menstrual fluid for identifying endometrial and menstrual abnormalities in both research and clinical settings as a non-invasive method for assessing endometrial health.

Automated summary

Limited variation exists in the percentage of some endometrial stem/progenitor cell types and abundance of selected proteins in menstrual fluid within and between a cohort of women. The study suggests that menstrual fluid could be a reliable source for assessing endometrial health and abnormalities, with the potential for diagnostic applications. Further research involving larger cohorts and consecutive menstrual cycles may be needed to fully understand the normal range of endometrial stem/progenitor cells and proteins in menstrual fluid.