Phenotypic and Functional Characterisation of Primary Endometriotic Stromal Cells for In Vitro Model Development
This study characterized the phenotypic and functional properties of primary endometriotic stromal cells to establish a more accurate in vitro model for endometriosis research.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
This study aimed to phenotypically and functionally characterise primary endometriotic stromal cells to support in vitro model development and the future establishment of an immortalised endometriotic cell line. Lesion tissues from 18 patients (ovarian, peritoneal, and rectovaginal septum lesions) were enzymatically digested using two protocols, then cultured and screened for mycoplasma, with assessments of viability, proliferation/population doubling time, migration (wound-healing imaging), gene expression (qPCR for oestrogen-related genes), immunocytochemistry markers (vimentin, cytokeratin, PAX2), 3D spheroid formation, and hormonal responses to oestradiol (E2) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). Cells maintained >90% viability through passage 5, showed migration kinetics largely unaffected by digestion protocol or menstrual cycle phase, but exhibited inter-individual variability, and had disease-associated features including downregulation of ESR1 and reduced ESR1/ESR2 ratio versus normal endometrium, stromal marker vimentin positivity with cytokeratin negativity, strong PAX2 expression, spheroid formation with variable morphology, and heterogeneous E2/MPA responses including reduced E2-induced growth linked to lower ESR1 and variable MPA effects consistent with progesterone resistance. The paper excluded four patient-derived cultures that failed to proliferate after isolation. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it develops and validates primary endometriotic stromal cell cultures as an in vitro model, including their phenotypic markers and functional hormonal responses.
Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
Full text
4,119 characters
· extracted from
oa-html
· 4 sections
· click to expand
Background
Materials and methods
Results
Conclusion
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-07-29T06:19:52.536310+00:00