4.6 Article

Histatin-1 Expression in Human Lacrimal Epithelium

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health-National Eye Institute [K08EY024339]
  2. Illinois Society to Prevent Blindness
  3. Midwest Eye Banks
  4. National Institute of Health-National Eye Institute Core grant [2P30EY001792-36A1]
  5. Research to Prevent Blindness (NY,NY)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Study of human lacrimal cell biology is limited by poor access to tissue samples, heterogeneous cell composition of tissue and a lack of established lacrimal epithelial markers. In order to further our understanding of lacrimal cell biology, we sought to find a better marker for human lacrimal epithelial cells, compared to what has been reported in the literature. Methods We utilized human Muller's muscle conjunctival resection (MMCR) specimens containing accessory lacrimal gland (ALG) and cadaveric main lacrimal gland (MLG) as sources of lacrimal tissue. Candidate markers were sought using human ALG tissue from MMCR specimens, isolated by laser capture microdissection (LCM). Affymetrix (R) analysis was performed on total RNA isolated from FFPE samples to profile transcription in ALG. MMCR tissue sections were assessed by immunofluorescence using antibodies for histatin-1, lactoferrin, E-cadherin (E-cad) and alpha-smooth muscle actin (ASMA). Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis was performed to analyze the expression of histatin-1, E-cad and lactoferrin from cadaveric MLG. Results Histatin-1 is expressed in ALG and MLG, localizes to lacrimal epithelium, and to a greater degree than do other putative lacrimal epithelial markers. Conclusions Histatin-1 is a good marker for human lacrimal epithelium in ALG and MLG and can be used to identify lacrimal cells in future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available