4.6 Article

Expression of proliferation markers and cell cycle regulators in T cell lymphoproliferative skin disorders

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 125-132

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2007.07.011

关键词

lymphoma; proliferation; cell cycle; immunohistochemistry; cutaneous T cell lymphoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Abnormal cell proliferation, which results from deregulation of the cell cycle, is fundamental in tumorigenesis. Objectives: To investigate the expression of proliferation markers and cell cycle regulators in a range of T cell lymphoproliferative skin diseases. Methods: We studied skin specimens of 51 patients with parapsoriasis (PP), mycosis fungiodes (MF), or lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP). Immunohistochemistry was performed for Ki-67, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), minichromosome maintenance protein 7 (MCM7), and p21. Results: MF with stage IIB-IV and LyP showed a significantly greater number of Ki-67-positive cells than PP (P=0.02 and 0.001) and MF I-IIA (P=0.019 and 0.003), respectively. MCM7 staining revealed significantly higher labeling indices for MF IIB-IV and LyP when compared to PP (P = 0.002 and 0.04) and MF I-IIA (P = 0.0005 and 0.01), respectively. Compared to PP and MF I-IIA, MF IIB-IV was associated with significantly higher labeling indices for PCNA (P = 0.006 and 0.0004). p21 staining was significantly increased in MF IIB-IV and LyP when compared to PP (P = 0.006 and 0.003) and MF I-IIA (P = 0.003). However, p21 staining was all in all very weak. Conclusions: Ki-67 and PCNA seem to be useful immunohistological parameters for the correlation with the clinical stage of MF In the differentiation and prognostication of T cell lymphoproliferative skin disorders, MCM7 may serve as a novel biomarker which is, in contrast to Ki-67 and PCNA, stable throughout the cell cycle. (c) 2007 Japanese Society for Investigative Dermatology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据