4.4 Article

Distribution of lymphatic vessel network in normal urinary bladder

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 72, 期 3, 页码 706-710

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.061

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor (LYVE-1) is a novel lymphatic vessel marker that is expressed on lymph vessel endothelial cells. The objective of this study was to determine the LYVE-1 expression patterns in normal urothelium and to compose the geometric topography of the lymphatic network. METHODS Immunohistochemical staining for LYVE-1 and von Willebrand factor was performed to assess the differences in the distribution of lymphatic vessels between the components in the urinary bladder. The sizes of the individual lymphatic vessels were categorized as small, medium, and large. To compare the lymphatic density (counts per square millimeter), the number of lymphatic vessels of the five random areas was counted in each specimen. RESULTS LYVE-1 expression and the lymphatic density of the muscularis propria were significantly greater than those of other layers, including the epithelium, lamina propria, perivesical fat, and serosa (P < 0.0001). The size of the lymphatic vessels in the muscularis propria was significantly smaller than that in the other layers (P < 0.0001). The greatest distribution of the lymphatic vessels was identified in the border areas consisting of the lamina propria and muscular propria or the muscular propria and adventitia, including the perivesical fat and serosa. CONCLUSIONS We have developed a new type of color geometric topography to accurately exhibit the distribution of that complex network. Lymphatic vessels, although small, are predominately distributed in the muscularis propria in the normal urothelium compared with that in the other layers. The LYVE-1 antibody was a useful specific marker for the illustration of the lymphatic vessel in conventional paraffin-embedded specimens of the urinary bladder.

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

4.4
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