4.4 Article

Endothelium in hepatic cavernous hemangiomas does not express the hyaluronan receptor for endocytosis

Journal

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 265-269

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2002.32223

Keywords

cavernous hemangioma; endothelial cell; liver; hyaluronan binding protein

Categories

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM35978] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM035978] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The liver contains two distinct endothelial cell types: vascular and sinusoidal. Although cavernous hemangioma is the most comm on benign tumor of the liver, vascular or sinusoidal endothelial cell differentiation has not been described. An endocytic receptor responsible for the uptake and degradation of hyaluronan is present in the sinusoidal endothelium of the liver. The hyaluronan receptor for endocytosis (HARE) may therefore be a useful marker for sinusoidal endothelial cell differentiation. Using monoclonal antibodies specific for HARE, CD31, and factor VIII, we completed an immunohistochemical study of the endothelial cells of both hepatic cavernous hemangiomas and of nonneoplastic human liver. The and-HARE monoclonal antibodies showed diffuse strong staining of nonneoplastic liver sinusoidal endothelium. No staining of nonsinusoidal endothelium or the endothelial lining of the hemangiomas was seen with anti-HARE. In contrast, diffuse strong staining for factor VIII and CD31 was present in nonsinusoidal. endothelium and cavernous hemangioma endothelium. Neither factor VIII nor CD31 staining was present in the sinusoidal endothelium. In conclusion, the endothelium of hepatic cavernous hemangiomas demonstrates vascular but not sinusoidal differentiation based on the absence of HARE and presence of CD31 and factor VIII. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available