4.7 Article

Neural Crest Stem Cells in Juvenile Angiofibromas

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23041932

Keywords

juvenile angiofibroma; neural crest stem cell; CD271; epithelial-mesenchymal transition; MMP3

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The etiology of juvenile angiofibroma has been controversial for a long time. In this study, immunohistochemical analyses and gene expression analysis were used to propose a new understanding of the disease, suggesting that it is a malformation derived from neural crest cells, which can explain its typical site of origin and blood supply characteristics.
The etiology of juvenile angiofibroma (JA) has been a controversial topic for more than 160 years. Numerous theories have been proposed to explain this rare benign neoplasm arising predominately in adolescent males, focusing mainly on either the vascular or fibrous component. To assess our hypothesis of JA's being a malformation arising from neural crest cells/remnants of the first branchial arch plexus, we performed immunohistochemical analyses of neural crest stem cells (NCSC) and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) candidates. Immunoexpression of the NCSC marker CD271(p75) was observed in all investigated JA's (n = 22), mainly around the pathological vessels. Close to CD271(p75)-positive cells, high MMP3-staining was also observed. Additionally, from one JA with sufficient material, RT-qPCR identified differences in the expression pattern of PDGFR beta, MMP2 and MMP3 in MACS(R)-separated CD271(p75)positive vs. CD271(p75) negative cell fractions. Our results, together with the consideration of the literature, provide evidence that JA's represent a malformation within the first branchial arch artery/plexus remnants deriving from NCSC. This theory would explain the typical site of tumor origin as well as the characteristic tumor blood supply, whereas the process of EMT provides an explanation for the vascular and fibrous tumor component.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available