Trophoblastic and uterine luminal epithelial surfaces at the time of blastocyst adhesion in the rat

Fixed uteri from rats on the afternoon of day 6 of pregnancy were split to expose the implantation chambers, their enclosed blastocysts, and the imprints of the blastocyst on the adjacent epithelium of the chamber. Some of the implantation chambers were prepared for scanning electron microscopy; other chambers were treated with colloidal iron hydroxide, with cationized ferritin, or with the tannic acid method, and subsequently were prepared for transmission electron microscopy. In this manner, the disposition of the surface-coat markers on the surface of the blastocysts, surface of the uterus within the chamber, and the surface of the uterus that had been apposed to a blastocyst were compared. Despite the pronounced morphological differences between the microvilli of the uterine luminal epithelium in the imprint and those in the rest of the chamber, the binding of the markers was remarkably similar. No evidence of removal of surface coat could be found in that area of the uterus in contact with the blastocyst. In addition, in two instances in the cationized ferritin-treated material, and in another instance in tannic acid-stained material, regions of the apparently adhering trophoblastic cell membranes and uterine cell membranes had abundant coat materials and, possibly, even secretory materials interposed. When blastocyst-sized glass beads were introduced into uteri from animals made pseudopregnant or unilaterally pregnant, the beads failed to elicit a decidual response and made an imprint that did not resemble the imprint of a blastocyst in an implantation chamber. It was concluded that, at least in the initial stages of adhesion, the blastocyst does not bring about a physical removal of the demonstrable aspects of the surface coat of the uterus. It was concluded further, that glass beads are not a suitable object for mimicking a blastocyst in the rat uterus.