Fibrogenesis resulting from cyclic bleeding: the Holy Grail of the natural history of ectopic endometrium

Fibrogenesis resulting from cyclic bleeding: the Holy Grail of the natural history of ectopic... Innovation drought Despite the exponential growth in the number of PubMed-indexed publications on endometriosis in the last 60 years (Guo, 2014), a simple reality check can be quite humbling and, perhaps more likely, disheartening. Innovation drought is conspicuous. So far not a single biomarker has been proven to be clinically useful for diagnosing endometriosis (Gupta et al., 2016; Nisenblat et al., 2016a, 2016b). Furthermore, a good disease-staging system that correlates with the severity of symptoms and/or has prognostic predictive capability is lacking. The innovation drought is most glaring in the research and development of non-hormonal drugs: this is so painfully stagnant that the disappointment is audible (Vercellini et al., 2011). Currently, the top-of-the-line drug for treating endometriosis is dienogest; a drug that was originally synthesized by Jenapharm in then East Germany in the 1979 well before the boom of molecular biology of endometriosis and certainly before the advent of genomics or proteomics. Dienogest is effective in suppressing endometriosis-associated pain; however, it only alleviates symptoms, it does not reduce the volume of the endometriotic nodules (Leonardo-Pinto et al., 2017). While a new class of drug is now poised to get regulatory approval (i.e. gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists), it is far from innovative from the mechanism of action perspective even though it is structurally novel. GnRH antagonists still aims to modulate the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis through a validated target, similarly to their agonist counterparts and, as such, may still share the same side-effects as GnRH agonists. Of course, GnRH antagonists can remove the ‘flare-up’ phenomenon, but their promise for more precise control of estrogen production could be undermined by the vast inter-individual variations. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov indicates that currently nine pharmaceutical companies are currently in the various stages of developing GnRH antagonists, making them the most coveted drug in reproductive medicine. Aside from GnRH antagonists, the research and development pipelines of all pharmaceutical companies seem to be trickling or are on the verge of drying up; several compounds in the Phase I stage appear to be congenitally ill-prepared to combat the fibroproliferative nature of endometriosis. No company is investing anything on drug research and development for adenomyosis, and so far all trials on non-hormonal drugs have apparently failed (Guo, 2014). Thus, it seems that in the next 5–8 years there will not be any truly revolutionary drug for patients with endometriosis or adenomyosis. This is a very serious problem. What went wrong? Faced with such an abject failure, one could still pretend that all is well, continue business as usual, wait for divine revelation, and pray that some miracles will happen eventually. Conscientious and responsible investigators, however, may experience bouts of self-doubt, do some soul-searching, and then contemplate possible paradigm shifts. Realistically, questioning the very basic that we have espoused so dearly that might have shackled our minds and imagination would be an easy and rational first step. Evolving definitions Deceptively simple and straightforward, endometriosis has always been defined somewhat monolithically as ‘the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside of the normal location’ (Beshay and Carr, 2012). However, this simple definition belies a kaleidoscopic variation in location, size, color, depth of invasion, presence or absence of adhesion, the proportion of epithelial/stromal cells, and even the presence or absence of these cell types, as in the well-documented phenomenon of ‘stromal endometriosis’ (i.e. lesions without glands) (Clement, 2007; Mai et al., 1997). On top of these variations, there is also a wild variation in symptomology and severity among patients. Dense fibrotic tissues are often present in and/or surrounding the lesions (Bonte et al., 2002; Clement, 2007; Cornillie et al., 1990; Guo et al., 2015; Itoga et al., 2003; Khare et al., 1996; Matsuzaki et al., 1999; Nisolle and Donnez, 1997; Stovall et al., 1992), especially in deep endometriosis (Bonte et al., 2002; Cornillie et al., 1990; Khare et al., 1996; Nisolle and Donnez, 1997). The fibrosis may result in subsequent adhesion, anatomic distortion and pelvic pain (Nisolle and Donnez, 1997). In this sense, the proposed redefinition of endometriosis by Dr Vigano and the famed Italian team in their Opinion article recently published in Human Reproduction is quite fitting and in fact long overdue (Vigano et al., 2017). With remarkable prescience, Vigano et al. rightly point out that a redefinition should reorient current research efforts towards more effective therapies, help to develop more adequate animal models for endometriosis and improve patient care (Vigano et al., 2017). Their proposal is all the more admirable at a time when one notable fad is to seek consensus on just about everything, because the proposal invites people to ponder, to think, to muse, and to quest for innovation, which is unlikely to come from any consensus. In fact, the proposed redefinition by Vigano et al. (2017) that endometriosis is ‘a fibrotic condition in which endometrial stroma and epithelium can be identified’ could go a bit further based on evidence unearthed in the last few years. As we now know, endometriotic lesions, or ectopic endometrium for that matter, are fundamentally wounds undergoing repeated tissue injury and repair (ReTIAR) (Guo et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b) due mostly to cyclic bleeding (Brosens, 1997). Consequent to this ReTIAR, the endometriotic lesions, stimulated by transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 secreted from activated platelets and other immune cells or by some neuropeptides secreted from sensory nerve fibers, undergo epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation (FMT), resulting in increased cellular contractility and collagen production, leading ultimately to fibrosis (Yan et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b). Prolonged exposure to activated platelets and/or immune cells also leads to increased expression of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), as well as markers of differentiated smooth muscle cells (SMCs), by endometriotic stromal cells, which are likely to be responsible for the smooth muscle metaplasia (SMM) that is universally seen in endometriotic lesions (Itoga et al., 2003; Khare et al., 1996; Matsuzaki and Darcha, 2013; Mechsner et al., 2005). During disease progression endometriotic lesions also undergo epigenetic changes (Liu et al., 2017; Zhang, et al., 2017a), resulting in epigenetic aberrations as reported years ago (Guo, 2009). Remarkably, similar processes apparently also occur in adenomyotic lesions owing, perhaps in no small amount, to the shared defining feature of cyclic bleeding as in endometriotic lesions (Liu et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016). In other words, fibrogenesis is an integral and intrinsic part of the progression of ectopic endometrium; fibrosis is not just the secondary event triggered by an insult (Walton et al., 2017) – rather it is an inescapable destiny for wounds that undergo ReTIAR. While many details, such as the source of myofibroblasts, still await more research, these processes essentially depict the natural history of endometriotic lesions, which so far can only be guesstimated very roughly by the color of lesions (Brosens, 1994; Harirchian et al., 2012; Nisolle et al., 1993; Redwine, 1987), and, to a much lesser extent, the depth of invasion (Brosens, 1994). In light of these developments, endometriosis may be better defined as ‘a condition that started with the ectopic deposition of endometrial stroma and epithelium which undergo cyclic bleeding and thus repeated tissue injury and repair, resulting in gradual and progressive smooth muscle metaplasia and fibrogenesis’. One advantage of this definition is that it seems to cover all varieties of endometriosis and highlights the dynamic and progressive nature of endometriotic lesions. But more importantly, it essentially embodies the natural history of endometriotic lesions. Implications Arguably, knowing the natural history of endometriotic lesions holds the key to unlocking the enigma of the pathophysiology of endometriosis. Lesional fibrogenesis resulting from ReTIAR is essentially the Holy Grail of the natural history of ectopic endometrium. The understanding of the natural history of ectopic endometrium should greatly empower endometriosis researchers. First, due to the shared commonality of cyclic bleeding, adenomyotic and endometriotic lesions can be investigated within the same framework (Liu et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016). It has been long known that the two conditions often co-exist (Li et al., 2014; Leyendecker et al., 2015), and the two have been postulated to have the same origin (Leyendecker et al., 2002, 2009, 2015). Second, it gives a global view of just how endometriotic lesions would develop and progress. This is important, since all too often we have seen a study that reports some molecular aberrations in endometriosis from painstakingly designed and meticulously executed experiments without knowing how the discovery fits in a global picture, much like a group of blind men groping and trying to figure out, in vain, what an elephant looks like. In addition, this global view could help to predict things that are otherwise difficult to find. Moreover, it may provide a framework to piece together seemingly unrelated findings, eventually weaving a complete tapestry of the pathophysiology of endometriosis. Third, the natural history and the dynamic nature of several cell types involved in the process tell us that the cellular identity of lesions is simply not immutable. Rather, through interaction with other cells and mediators in their microenvironment, endometriotic cells may acquire a new morphology, new function, new phenotype and new identity, and collectively drive lesional fibrogenesis. The composition of cell types within a lesion may also change over time and this may explain why there are frequent conflicting reports in the literature because observations are often based on the use of mRNA or proteins extracted from a mixture of different cell types indiscriminately. Fourth, through refocused research priorities, and perhaps also reallocation of resources, we can round up all perpetrators/suspects that are actively involved in promoting the lesional fibrogenesis, which can serve as potential drug targets. In the past, a great deal of efforts have been invested on hormonal and inflammation pathways without knowing what their roles are in lesional fibrogenesis. Since fibrosis is generally difficult to treat, let alone cure (Wynn, 2007), the fibrosis in endometriotic lesions is very likely to be chiefly responsible for the resistance to pharmacological treatment, especially in deep endometriosis (Koninckx et al., 2012). Conceivably, the low vascularization combined with the absence of steroid hormone receptors in the fibrotic tissues (Liu et al., 2017) are the major causes for the failure of the traditional hormonal drugs. As a corollary, any compound that does not have any anti-fibrotic capability may have little chance to succeed. Sixth, by prudent choice of markers that represent various turning points in EMT, FMT, SMM and fibrogenesis it is possible to stage endometriosis by histology as has been shown in baboons (Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b) and mice (Zhang, et al., 2017a, 2017b). A good histology-based staging system should be useful not only for prognostic purposes but also to provide a basis for precision medicine. Seventh, by capitalizing on the advent of elastography, a novel imaging technique that can measure tissue stiffness, and on the intimate link between the extent of fibrosis and tissue stiffness, we can significantly improve our imaging diagnostic capability for endometriosis and adenomyosis, especially adenomyosis (Liu et al., 2018) and deep endometriosis. It is also possible that, due to the correlation between lesional stiffness and hormonal receptor expression levels, results from elastographic imaging could be used to help choose the best treatment modality for deep endometriosis and/or adenomyosis (Liu et al., 2018). Eighth, seeing thorough the lens of this natural history of endometriosis, we can now understand why many clinical trials on endometriosis foundered. Despite enormous resources and toil invested, these trials are a parade of intrigue, surprise and disappointment, especially those trials on non-hormonal drugs (Guo and Evers, 2013; Guo, 2014). Surprisingly, there has been no open discussion on why and how these trials went bust, raising the prospect that many missteps and mistakes made in these failed trials would be repeated in future trials. With our current knowledge of the natural history of endometriotic lesions, it is easy to see that many, seemingly promising, preclinical studies that led to the launch of clinical trials (such as trials on inflixmab and ERB-041) used rodent or nonhuman primate models of endometriosis that did not fully recapitulate human endometriosis in general and fibrosis in particular. The only study that used a right baboon model, which is the closest to human condition, did get the right results (Barrier et al., 2004). However, data interpretation in this study was in error: treatment with etanercept, a TNF neutralization agent, did reduce the amount of active lesions effectively, but it had no effect whatsoever on more advanced lesions. The latter observation is very likely replicated in the inflixmab trial (Koninckx et al., 2008), leading to its demise. Lastly, knowing the stage of progression can help us design far better studies to identify biomarkers for endometriosis, which so far has been a debacle (Nisenblat et al., 2016a, 2016b). The information on the developmental stage of lesions should help boost the signal-to-noise ratio within the data, and perhaps also help to identify biomarkers for early-stage endometriosis. Time for change Dr Vigano and her associates are to be commended for their perceptive insight, timely proposal and for being the first to propose a change. In the face of innovation drought and all the debacles it is the right thing to do since ‘old ways will not open new doors’. Starting with a new definition, especially with the understanding of the natural history of ectopic endometrium, there is a hope that things will turn around. It may be a much needed antidote to keep us sane and sober, since ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ are said to qualify for insanity. Author’s roles The author wrote the paper on his own. Funding This work was supported in part by Grants 81471434, 81530040 and 81771553 from the National Science Foundation of China, and an Excellence in Centers of Clinical Medicine grant (2017ZZ01016) from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality. Conflict of interest The author has nothing to declare. References Barrier BF, Bates GW, Leland MM, Leach DA, Robinson RD, Propst AM. Efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in the treatment of spontaneous endometriosis in baboons. Fertil Steril  2004; 81: 775– 779. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Beshay VE, Carr BR. Endometriosis. In: Hoffman B, Schorge J, Schaffer J, Halvorson L, Bradshaw K, Cunningham F (eds). Williams Gynecology . New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012, 281– 303. Bonte H, Chapron C, Vieira M, Fauconnier A, Barakat H, Fritel X, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Dubuisson JB. Histologic appearance of endometriosis infiltrating uterosacral ligaments in women with painful symptoms. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc  2002; 9: 519– 524. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brosens IA. Is mild endometriosis a progressive disease? Hum Reprod  1994; 9: 2209– 2211. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brosens IA. Endometriosis – a disease because it is characterized by bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol  1997; 176: 263– 267. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Clement PB. The pathology of endometriosis: a survey of the many faces of a common disease emphasizing diagnostic pitfalls and unusual and newly appreciated aspects. Adv Anat Pathol  2007; 14: 241– 260. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cornillie FJ, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM, Koninckx PR. Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril  1990; 53: 978– 983. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW. Epigenetics of endometriosis. Mol Hum Reprod  2009; 15: 587– 607. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW. An overview of the current status of clinical trials on endometriosis: issues and concerns. Fertil Steril  2014; 101: 183– 190.e184. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW, Ding D, Shen M, Liu X. Dating endometriotic ovarian cysts based on the content of cyst fluid and its potential clinical implications. Reprod Sci  2015; 22: 873– 883. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW, Evers JL. Lack of transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis. ObstetGynecol  2013; 121: 1281– 1290. Gupta D, Hull ML, Fraser I, Miller L, Bossuyt PM, Johnson N, Nisenblat V. Endometrial biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016; 4: CD012165. Google Scholar PubMed  Harirchian P, Gashaw I, Lipskind ST, Braundmeier AG, Hastings JM, Olson MR, Fazleabas AT. Lesion kinetics in a non-human primate model of endometriosis. Hum Reprod  2012; 27: 2341– 2351. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Itoga T, Matsumoto T, Takeuchi H, Yamasaki S, Sasahara N, Hoshi T, Kinoshita K. Fibrosis and smooth muscle metaplasia in rectovaginal endometriosis. Pathol Int  2003; 53: 371– 375. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khare VK, Martin DC, Eltorky M. A comparative study of ovarian and pelvic wall-infiltrating endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc  1996; 3: 235– 239. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Koninckx PR, Craessaerts M, Timmerman D, Cornillie F, Kennedy S. Anti-TNF-alpha treatment for deep endometriosis-associated pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Hum Reprod  2008; 23: 2017– 2023. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J. Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril  2012; 98: 564– 571. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leonardo-Pinto JP, Benetti-Pinto CL, Cursino K, Yela DA. Dienogest and deep infiltrating endometriosis: The remission of symptoms is not related to endometriosis nodule remission. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol  2017; 211: 108– 111. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, Stalf T, Huppert P, Mall G, Bottcher B, Wildt L. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obstet  2015; 291: 917– 932. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Herbertz M, Kunz G, Mall G. Endometriosis results from the dislocation of basal endometrium. Hum Reprod  2002; 17: 2725– 2736. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Wildt L, Mall G. The pathophysiology of endometriosis and adenomyosis: tissue injury and repair. Arch Gynecol Obstet  2009; 280: 529– 538. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Li X, Liu X, Guo SW. Clinical profiles of 710 premenopausal women with adenomyosis who underwent hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res  2014; 40: 485– 494. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu X, Ding D, Ren Y, Guo S-W. Transvaginal elastosonography as an imaging technique for diagnosing adenomyosis. Reprod Sci  2018. doi:10.1177/1933719117750752. Liu X, Shen S, Qi Q, Zhang H, Guo S-W. Corroborating evidence for platelet-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiationin the development of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod  2016; 31: 734– 749. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu X, Zhang Q, Guo SW. Histological and immunohistochemical characterization of the similarity and difference between ovarian endometriomas and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Reprod Sci  2017. doi:10.1177/1933719117718275. Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Perkins DG, Parks W. Pathogenetic role of the stromal cells in endometriosis and adenomyosis. Histopathology  1997; 30: 430– 442. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Matsuzaki S, Canis M, Darcha C, Dechelotte P, Pouly JL, Bruhat MA. Fibrogenesis in peritoneal endometriosis. A semi-quantitative analysis of type-I collagen. Gynecol Obstet Invest  1999; 47: 197– 199. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Matsuzaki S, Darcha C. Involvement of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway in the cellular and molecular mechanisms of fibrosis in endometriosis. PLoS One  2013; 8: e76808. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mechsner S, Bartley J, Loddenkemper C, Salomon DS, Starzinski-Powitz A, Ebert AD. Oxytocin receptor expression in smooth muscle cells of peritoneal endometriotic lesions and ovarian endometriotic cysts. Fertil Steril  2005; 83: 1220– 1231. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Shaikh R, Farquhar C, Jordan V, Scheffers CS, Mol BW, Johnson N, Hull ML. Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016a; 5: CD012179. Nisenblat V, Prentice L, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Hull ML, Johnson N. Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016b; 7: CD012281. Google Scholar PubMed  Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F, Anaf V, Mine JM, Donnez J. Morphometric study of the stromal vascularization in peritoneal endometriosis. Fertil Steril  1993; 59: 681– 684. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nisolle M, Donnez J. Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril  1997; 68: 585– 596. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Redwine DB. Age-related evolution in color appearance of endometriosis. Fertil Steril  1987; 48: 1062– 1063. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shen M, Liu X, Zhang H, Guo SW. Transforming growth factor β1 signaling coincides with -mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in drive the development of adenomyosis in mice. Hum Reprod  2016; 2: 355– 369. Stovall DW, Anners JA, Halme J. Immunohistochemical detection of type I, III, and IV collagen in endometriosis implants. Fertil Steril  1992; 57: 984– 989. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vercellini P, Crosignani P, Somigliana E, Vigano P, Frattaruolo MP, Fedele L. ‘Waiting for Godot’: a commonsense approach to the medical treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod  2011; 26: 3– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vigano P, Candiani M, Monno A, Giacomini E, Vercellini P, Somigliana E. Time to redefine endometriosis including its pro-fibrotic nature. Hum Reprod  2018; 33: 347– 352. Walton KL, Johnson KE, Harrison CA. Targeting TGF-beta mediated SMAD signaling for the prevention of fibrosis. Front Pharmacol  2017; 8: 461. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wynn TA. Common and unique mechanisms regulate fibrosis in various fibroproliferative diseases. J Clin Invest  2007; 117: 524– 529. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Yan D, Liu X, Guo SW. Nerve fibers and endometriotic lesions: partners in crime in inflicting pains in women with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol  2017; 209: 14– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Zhang Q, Dong P, Liu X, Sagkuragi N, Guo S-W. Enhancer of Zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition in endometriosis. Sci Rep  2017a. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06920-7. Zhang Q, Duan J, Liu X, Guo SW. Platelets drive smooth muscle metaplasia and fibrogenesis in endometriosis through epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation. Mol Cell Endocrinol  2016a; 428: 1– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Zhang Q, Duan J, Olson M, Fazleabas A, Guo SW. Cellular changes consistent with epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in the progression of experimental endometriosis in baboons. Reprod Sci  2016b; 10: 1409– 1421. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zhang Q, Liu X, Guo SW. Progressive development of endometriosis and its hindrance by anti-platelet treatment in mice with induced endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online  2017b; 34: 124– 136. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Reproduction Oxford University Press

Fibrogenesis resulting from cyclic bleeding: the Holy Grail of the natural history of ectopic endometrium

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/fibrogenesis-resulting-from-cyclic-bleeding-the-holy-grail-of-the-ZtUngexRtH
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
ISSN
0268-1161
eISSN
1460-2350
D.O.I.
10.1093/humrep/dey015
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Innovation drought Despite the exponential growth in the number of PubMed-indexed publications on endometriosis in the last 60 years (Guo, 2014), a simple reality check can be quite humbling and, perhaps more likely, disheartening. Innovation drought is conspicuous. So far not a single biomarker has been proven to be clinically useful for diagnosing endometriosis (Gupta et al., 2016; Nisenblat et al., 2016a, 2016b). Furthermore, a good disease-staging system that correlates with the severity of symptoms and/or has prognostic predictive capability is lacking. The innovation drought is most glaring in the research and development of non-hormonal drugs: this is so painfully stagnant that the disappointment is audible (Vercellini et al., 2011). Currently, the top-of-the-line drug for treating endometriosis is dienogest; a drug that was originally synthesized by Jenapharm in then East Germany in the 1979 well before the boom of molecular biology of endometriosis and certainly before the advent of genomics or proteomics. Dienogest is effective in suppressing endometriosis-associated pain; however, it only alleviates symptoms, it does not reduce the volume of the endometriotic nodules (Leonardo-Pinto et al., 2017). While a new class of drug is now poised to get regulatory approval (i.e. gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists), it is far from innovative from the mechanism of action perspective even though it is structurally novel. GnRH antagonists still aims to modulate the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis through a validated target, similarly to their agonist counterparts and, as such, may still share the same side-effects as GnRH agonists. Of course, GnRH antagonists can remove the ‘flare-up’ phenomenon, but their promise for more precise control of estrogen production could be undermined by the vast inter-individual variations. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov indicates that currently nine pharmaceutical companies are currently in the various stages of developing GnRH antagonists, making them the most coveted drug in reproductive medicine. Aside from GnRH antagonists, the research and development pipelines of all pharmaceutical companies seem to be trickling or are on the verge of drying up; several compounds in the Phase I stage appear to be congenitally ill-prepared to combat the fibroproliferative nature of endometriosis. No company is investing anything on drug research and development for adenomyosis, and so far all trials on non-hormonal drugs have apparently failed (Guo, 2014). Thus, it seems that in the next 5–8 years there will not be any truly revolutionary drug for patients with endometriosis or adenomyosis. This is a very serious problem. What went wrong? Faced with such an abject failure, one could still pretend that all is well, continue business as usual, wait for divine revelation, and pray that some miracles will happen eventually. Conscientious and responsible investigators, however, may experience bouts of self-doubt, do some soul-searching, and then contemplate possible paradigm shifts. Realistically, questioning the very basic that we have espoused so dearly that might have shackled our minds and imagination would be an easy and rational first step. Evolving definitions Deceptively simple and straightforward, endometriosis has always been defined somewhat monolithically as ‘the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside of the normal location’ (Beshay and Carr, 2012). However, this simple definition belies a kaleidoscopic variation in location, size, color, depth of invasion, presence or absence of adhesion, the proportion of epithelial/stromal cells, and even the presence or absence of these cell types, as in the well-documented phenomenon of ‘stromal endometriosis’ (i.e. lesions without glands) (Clement, 2007; Mai et al., 1997). On top of these variations, there is also a wild variation in symptomology and severity among patients. Dense fibrotic tissues are often present in and/or surrounding the lesions (Bonte et al., 2002; Clement, 2007; Cornillie et al., 1990; Guo et al., 2015; Itoga et al., 2003; Khare et al., 1996; Matsuzaki et al., 1999; Nisolle and Donnez, 1997; Stovall et al., 1992), especially in deep endometriosis (Bonte et al., 2002; Cornillie et al., 1990; Khare et al., 1996; Nisolle and Donnez, 1997). The fibrosis may result in subsequent adhesion, anatomic distortion and pelvic pain (Nisolle and Donnez, 1997). In this sense, the proposed redefinition of endometriosis by Dr Vigano and the famed Italian team in their Opinion article recently published in Human Reproduction is quite fitting and in fact long overdue (Vigano et al., 2017). With remarkable prescience, Vigano et al. rightly point out that a redefinition should reorient current research efforts towards more effective therapies, help to develop more adequate animal models for endometriosis and improve patient care (Vigano et al., 2017). Their proposal is all the more admirable at a time when one notable fad is to seek consensus on just about everything, because the proposal invites people to ponder, to think, to muse, and to quest for innovation, which is unlikely to come from any consensus. In fact, the proposed redefinition by Vigano et al. (2017) that endometriosis is ‘a fibrotic condition in which endometrial stroma and epithelium can be identified’ could go a bit further based on evidence unearthed in the last few years. As we now know, endometriotic lesions, or ectopic endometrium for that matter, are fundamentally wounds undergoing repeated tissue injury and repair (ReTIAR) (Guo et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b) due mostly to cyclic bleeding (Brosens, 1997). Consequent to this ReTIAR, the endometriotic lesions, stimulated by transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 secreted from activated platelets and other immune cells or by some neuropeptides secreted from sensory nerve fibers, undergo epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation (FMT), resulting in increased cellular contractility and collagen production, leading ultimately to fibrosis (Yan et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b). Prolonged exposure to activated platelets and/or immune cells also leads to increased expression of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), as well as markers of differentiated smooth muscle cells (SMCs), by endometriotic stromal cells, which are likely to be responsible for the smooth muscle metaplasia (SMM) that is universally seen in endometriotic lesions (Itoga et al., 2003; Khare et al., 1996; Matsuzaki and Darcha, 2013; Mechsner et al., 2005). During disease progression endometriotic lesions also undergo epigenetic changes (Liu et al., 2017; Zhang, et al., 2017a), resulting in epigenetic aberrations as reported years ago (Guo, 2009). Remarkably, similar processes apparently also occur in adenomyotic lesions owing, perhaps in no small amount, to the shared defining feature of cyclic bleeding as in endometriotic lesions (Liu et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016). In other words, fibrogenesis is an integral and intrinsic part of the progression of ectopic endometrium; fibrosis is not just the secondary event triggered by an insult (Walton et al., 2017) – rather it is an inescapable destiny for wounds that undergo ReTIAR. While many details, such as the source of myofibroblasts, still await more research, these processes essentially depict the natural history of endometriotic lesions, which so far can only be guesstimated very roughly by the color of lesions (Brosens, 1994; Harirchian et al., 2012; Nisolle et al., 1993; Redwine, 1987), and, to a much lesser extent, the depth of invasion (Brosens, 1994). In light of these developments, endometriosis may be better defined as ‘a condition that started with the ectopic deposition of endometrial stroma and epithelium which undergo cyclic bleeding and thus repeated tissue injury and repair, resulting in gradual and progressive smooth muscle metaplasia and fibrogenesis’. One advantage of this definition is that it seems to cover all varieties of endometriosis and highlights the dynamic and progressive nature of endometriotic lesions. But more importantly, it essentially embodies the natural history of endometriotic lesions. Implications Arguably, knowing the natural history of endometriotic lesions holds the key to unlocking the enigma of the pathophysiology of endometriosis. Lesional fibrogenesis resulting from ReTIAR is essentially the Holy Grail of the natural history of ectopic endometrium. The understanding of the natural history of ectopic endometrium should greatly empower endometriosis researchers. First, due to the shared commonality of cyclic bleeding, adenomyotic and endometriotic lesions can be investigated within the same framework (Liu et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016). It has been long known that the two conditions often co-exist (Li et al., 2014; Leyendecker et al., 2015), and the two have been postulated to have the same origin (Leyendecker et al., 2002, 2009, 2015). Second, it gives a global view of just how endometriotic lesions would develop and progress. This is important, since all too often we have seen a study that reports some molecular aberrations in endometriosis from painstakingly designed and meticulously executed experiments without knowing how the discovery fits in a global picture, much like a group of blind men groping and trying to figure out, in vain, what an elephant looks like. In addition, this global view could help to predict things that are otherwise difficult to find. Moreover, it may provide a framework to piece together seemingly unrelated findings, eventually weaving a complete tapestry of the pathophysiology of endometriosis. Third, the natural history and the dynamic nature of several cell types involved in the process tell us that the cellular identity of lesions is simply not immutable. Rather, through interaction with other cells and mediators in their microenvironment, endometriotic cells may acquire a new morphology, new function, new phenotype and new identity, and collectively drive lesional fibrogenesis. The composition of cell types within a lesion may also change over time and this may explain why there are frequent conflicting reports in the literature because observations are often based on the use of mRNA or proteins extracted from a mixture of different cell types indiscriminately. Fourth, through refocused research priorities, and perhaps also reallocation of resources, we can round up all perpetrators/suspects that are actively involved in promoting the lesional fibrogenesis, which can serve as potential drug targets. In the past, a great deal of efforts have been invested on hormonal and inflammation pathways without knowing what their roles are in lesional fibrogenesis. Since fibrosis is generally difficult to treat, let alone cure (Wynn, 2007), the fibrosis in endometriotic lesions is very likely to be chiefly responsible for the resistance to pharmacological treatment, especially in deep endometriosis (Koninckx et al., 2012). Conceivably, the low vascularization combined with the absence of steroid hormone receptors in the fibrotic tissues (Liu et al., 2017) are the major causes for the failure of the traditional hormonal drugs. As a corollary, any compound that does not have any anti-fibrotic capability may have little chance to succeed. Sixth, by prudent choice of markers that represent various turning points in EMT, FMT, SMM and fibrogenesis it is possible to stage endometriosis by histology as has been shown in baboons (Zhang et al., 2016a, 2016b) and mice (Zhang, et al., 2017a, 2017b). A good histology-based staging system should be useful not only for prognostic purposes but also to provide a basis for precision medicine. Seventh, by capitalizing on the advent of elastography, a novel imaging technique that can measure tissue stiffness, and on the intimate link between the extent of fibrosis and tissue stiffness, we can significantly improve our imaging diagnostic capability for endometriosis and adenomyosis, especially adenomyosis (Liu et al., 2018) and deep endometriosis. It is also possible that, due to the correlation between lesional stiffness and hormonal receptor expression levels, results from elastographic imaging could be used to help choose the best treatment modality for deep endometriosis and/or adenomyosis (Liu et al., 2018). Eighth, seeing thorough the lens of this natural history of endometriosis, we can now understand why many clinical trials on endometriosis foundered. Despite enormous resources and toil invested, these trials are a parade of intrigue, surprise and disappointment, especially those trials on non-hormonal drugs (Guo and Evers, 2013; Guo, 2014). Surprisingly, there has been no open discussion on why and how these trials went bust, raising the prospect that many missteps and mistakes made in these failed trials would be repeated in future trials. With our current knowledge of the natural history of endometriotic lesions, it is easy to see that many, seemingly promising, preclinical studies that led to the launch of clinical trials (such as trials on inflixmab and ERB-041) used rodent or nonhuman primate models of endometriosis that did not fully recapitulate human endometriosis in general and fibrosis in particular. The only study that used a right baboon model, which is the closest to human condition, did get the right results (Barrier et al., 2004). However, data interpretation in this study was in error: treatment with etanercept, a TNF neutralization agent, did reduce the amount of active lesions effectively, but it had no effect whatsoever on more advanced lesions. The latter observation is very likely replicated in the inflixmab trial (Koninckx et al., 2008), leading to its demise. Lastly, knowing the stage of progression can help us design far better studies to identify biomarkers for endometriosis, which so far has been a debacle (Nisenblat et al., 2016a, 2016b). The information on the developmental stage of lesions should help boost the signal-to-noise ratio within the data, and perhaps also help to identify biomarkers for early-stage endometriosis. Time for change Dr Vigano and her associates are to be commended for their perceptive insight, timely proposal and for being the first to propose a change. In the face of innovation drought and all the debacles it is the right thing to do since ‘old ways will not open new doors’. Starting with a new definition, especially with the understanding of the natural history of ectopic endometrium, there is a hope that things will turn around. It may be a much needed antidote to keep us sane and sober, since ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ are said to qualify for insanity. Author’s roles The author wrote the paper on his own. Funding This work was supported in part by Grants 81471434, 81530040 and 81771553 from the National Science Foundation of China, and an Excellence in Centers of Clinical Medicine grant (2017ZZ01016) from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality. Conflict of interest The author has nothing to declare. References Barrier BF, Bates GW, Leland MM, Leach DA, Robinson RD, Propst AM. Efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in the treatment of spontaneous endometriosis in baboons. Fertil Steril  2004; 81: 775– 779. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Beshay VE, Carr BR. Endometriosis. In: Hoffman B, Schorge J, Schaffer J, Halvorson L, Bradshaw K, Cunningham F (eds). Williams Gynecology . New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012, 281– 303. Bonte H, Chapron C, Vieira M, Fauconnier A, Barakat H, Fritel X, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Dubuisson JB. Histologic appearance of endometriosis infiltrating uterosacral ligaments in women with painful symptoms. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc  2002; 9: 519– 524. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brosens IA. Is mild endometriosis a progressive disease? Hum Reprod  1994; 9: 2209– 2211. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brosens IA. Endometriosis – a disease because it is characterized by bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol  1997; 176: 263– 267. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Clement PB. The pathology of endometriosis: a survey of the many faces of a common disease emphasizing diagnostic pitfalls and unusual and newly appreciated aspects. Adv Anat Pathol  2007; 14: 241– 260. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cornillie FJ, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM, Koninckx PR. Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril  1990; 53: 978– 983. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW. Epigenetics of endometriosis. Mol Hum Reprod  2009; 15: 587– 607. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW. An overview of the current status of clinical trials on endometriosis: issues and concerns. Fertil Steril  2014; 101: 183– 190.e184. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW, Ding D, Shen M, Liu X. Dating endometriotic ovarian cysts based on the content of cyst fluid and its potential clinical implications. Reprod Sci  2015; 22: 873– 883. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guo SW, Evers JL. Lack of transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis. ObstetGynecol  2013; 121: 1281– 1290. Gupta D, Hull ML, Fraser I, Miller L, Bossuyt PM, Johnson N, Nisenblat V. Endometrial biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016; 4: CD012165. Google Scholar PubMed  Harirchian P, Gashaw I, Lipskind ST, Braundmeier AG, Hastings JM, Olson MR, Fazleabas AT. Lesion kinetics in a non-human primate model of endometriosis. Hum Reprod  2012; 27: 2341– 2351. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Itoga T, Matsumoto T, Takeuchi H, Yamasaki S, Sasahara N, Hoshi T, Kinoshita K. Fibrosis and smooth muscle metaplasia in rectovaginal endometriosis. Pathol Int  2003; 53: 371– 375. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khare VK, Martin DC, Eltorky M. A comparative study of ovarian and pelvic wall-infiltrating endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc  1996; 3: 235– 239. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Koninckx PR, Craessaerts M, Timmerman D, Cornillie F, Kennedy S. Anti-TNF-alpha treatment for deep endometriosis-associated pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Hum Reprod  2008; 23: 2017– 2023. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J. Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril  2012; 98: 564– 571. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leonardo-Pinto JP, Benetti-Pinto CL, Cursino K, Yela DA. Dienogest and deep infiltrating endometriosis: The remission of symptoms is not related to endometriosis nodule remission. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol  2017; 211: 108– 111. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, Stalf T, Huppert P, Mall G, Bottcher B, Wildt L. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obstet  2015; 291: 917– 932. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Herbertz M, Kunz G, Mall G. Endometriosis results from the dislocation of basal endometrium. Hum Reprod  2002; 17: 2725– 2736. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leyendecker G, Wildt L, Mall G. The pathophysiology of endometriosis and adenomyosis: tissue injury and repair. Arch Gynecol Obstet  2009; 280: 529– 538. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Li X, Liu X, Guo SW. Clinical profiles of 710 premenopausal women with adenomyosis who underwent hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res  2014; 40: 485– 494. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu X, Ding D, Ren Y, Guo S-W. Transvaginal elastosonography as an imaging technique for diagnosing adenomyosis. Reprod Sci  2018. doi:10.1177/1933719117750752. Liu X, Shen S, Qi Q, Zhang H, Guo S-W. Corroborating evidence for platelet-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiationin the development of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod  2016; 31: 734– 749. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Liu X, Zhang Q, Guo SW. Histological and immunohistochemical characterization of the similarity and difference between ovarian endometriomas and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Reprod Sci  2017. doi:10.1177/1933719117718275. Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Perkins DG, Parks W. Pathogenetic role of the stromal cells in endometriosis and adenomyosis. Histopathology  1997; 30: 430– 442. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Matsuzaki S, Canis M, Darcha C, Dechelotte P, Pouly JL, Bruhat MA. Fibrogenesis in peritoneal endometriosis. A semi-quantitative analysis of type-I collagen. Gynecol Obstet Invest  1999; 47: 197– 199. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Matsuzaki S, Darcha C. Involvement of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway in the cellular and molecular mechanisms of fibrosis in endometriosis. PLoS One  2013; 8: e76808. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mechsner S, Bartley J, Loddenkemper C, Salomon DS, Starzinski-Powitz A, Ebert AD. Oxytocin receptor expression in smooth muscle cells of peritoneal endometriotic lesions and ovarian endometriotic cysts. Fertil Steril  2005; 83: 1220– 1231. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Shaikh R, Farquhar C, Jordan V, Scheffers CS, Mol BW, Johnson N, Hull ML. Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016a; 5: CD012179. Nisenblat V, Prentice L, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Hull ML, Johnson N. Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2016b; 7: CD012281. Google Scholar PubMed  Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F, Anaf V, Mine JM, Donnez J. Morphometric study of the stromal vascularization in peritoneal endometriosis. Fertil Steril  1993; 59: 681– 684. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nisolle M, Donnez J. Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril  1997; 68: 585– 596. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Redwine DB. Age-related evolution in color appearance of endometriosis. Fertil Steril  1987; 48: 1062– 1063. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shen M, Liu X, Zhang H, Guo SW. Transforming growth factor β1 signaling coincides with -mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in drive the development of adenomyosis in mice. Hum Reprod  2016; 2: 355– 369. Stovall DW, Anners JA, Halme J. Immunohistochemical detection of type I, III, and IV collagen in endometriosis implants. Fertil Steril  1992; 57: 984– 989. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vercellini P, Crosignani P, Somigliana E, Vigano P, Frattaruolo MP, Fedele L. ‘Waiting for Godot’: a commonsense approach to the medical treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod  2011; 26: 3– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vigano P, Candiani M, Monno A, Giacomini E, Vercellini P, Somigliana E. Time to redefine endometriosis including its pro-fibrotic nature. Hum Reprod  2018; 33: 347– 352. Walton KL, Johnson KE, Harrison CA. Targeting TGF-beta mediated SMAD signaling for the prevention of fibrosis. Front Pharmacol  2017; 8: 461. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wynn TA. Common and unique mechanisms regulate fibrosis in various fibroproliferative diseases. J Clin Invest  2007; 117: 524– 529. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Yan D, Liu X, Guo SW. Nerve fibers and endometriotic lesions: partners in crime in inflicting pains in women with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol  2017; 209: 14– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Zhang Q, Dong P, Liu X, Sagkuragi N, Guo S-W. Enhancer of Zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition in endometriosis. Sci Rep  2017a. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06920-7. Zhang Q, Duan J, Liu X, Guo SW. Platelets drive smooth muscle metaplasia and fibrogenesis in endometriosis through epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation. Mol Cell Endocrinol  2016a; 428: 1– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Zhang Q, Duan J, Olson M, Fazleabas A, Guo SW. Cellular changes consistent with epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in the progression of experimental endometriosis in baboons. Reprod Sci  2016b; 10: 1409– 1421. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zhang Q, Liu X, Guo SW. Progressive development of endometriosis and its hindrance by anti-platelet treatment in mice with induced endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online  2017b; 34: 124– 136. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal

Human ReproductionOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off