4.5 Article

Immuno-Expression of Human Melanoma Stem Cell Markers in Tissues at Different Stages of the Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 163, 期 1, 页码 E11-E15

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.03.043

关键词

stem cell markers; human cutaneous melanoma

类别

资金

  1. Russell Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Human cutaneous melanoma can be one of the most aggressive tumors and is extremely resistant to all current therapeutic modalities. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies were undertaken to assess independent relative frequency on preferential overexpression and simultaneous expression of four stem cell markers; CD133+, ABCB5+, CD166, and Nestin, at different stages of the disease. Material and Methods. Five-micron sections from paraffin blocks from primary melanoma, lymph node (LN) metastases, distant metastases, benign nevi from non-melanoma patients (NMP), and patients with past history of melanoma(MP) were IHC stained with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) to the four stem cell markers. Results. Overexpression of CD133+ was noted in tissues from LN and distant metastases compared to benign nevi (P < 0.0022, P < 0.013, respectively). Overexpression of ABCB5+ was observed comparing primary melanoma, LN, and distant metastases to benign nevi from NMP (P < 0.0063, P < 0.001, P < 0.00058, respectively). Significant overexpression of ABCB5+ was noted in tissues from LN and distant metastases compared with benign nevi from MP (P < 0.0003, P < 0.0068). None of the benign nevi of NMP demonstrated ABCB5+. Conclusions. This study clearly shows the existence of a distinct hyperpolarized population of stem cells and may implicate genetic factors in human cutaneous melanoma. Simultaneous overexpression of CD133D+ and Nestin could reflect on their origin or lineage association with a neural stem cell. These findings may open new perspectives for therapeutic implication of a melanoma stem cell in specific cancer therapy. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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