4.6 Article

Prevalence of MCPyV, HPyV6, HPyV7 and TSPyV in Actinic Keratosis Biopsy Specimens

Journal

VIRUSES-BASEL
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14020427

Keywords

human polyomaviruses; skin; actinic keratosis; skin cancers; PCR; sequencing

Categories

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [SG-2018-12366194]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study investigated the prevalence of four human polyomaviruses (HPyVs) in actinic keratosis (AK), a premalignant skin lesion. MCPyV was detected in both lesion and non-lesion skin biopsies, while HPyV6, HPyV7, and TSPyV were not detected in any skin samples. This indicates that cutaneous HPyVs may not have a potential role in the development of AK, but more extensive longitudinal studies are needed for definitive conclusions.
To date, 14 human polyomaviruses (HPyVs) have been identified using high-throughput technologies. Among them, MCPyV, HPyV6, HPyV7 and TSPyV present a skin tropism, but a causal role in skin diseases has been established only for MCPyV as a causative agent of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and TSPyV as an etiological agent of Trichodysplasia Spinulosa (TS). In the search for a possible role for cutaneous HPyVs in the development of skin malignant lesions, we investigated the prevalence of MCPyV, HPyV6, HPyV7 and TSPyV in actinic keratosis (AK), a premalignant skin lesion that has the potential to progress towards a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). One skin lesion and one non-lesion skin from nine affected individuals were analyzed by qualitative PCR. MCPyV was detected in 9 out of 9 lesion biopsies and 6 out of 8 non-lesion biopsies. HPyV6 was detected only in healthy skin, while HPyV7 and TSPyV were not detected in any skin sample. These findings argue against a possible role of cutaneous HPyVs in AK. However, considering the small sample size analyzed, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Longitudinal studies on large cohorts are warranted.

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