4.4 Article

Immunohistochemical evaluation of immune cell infiltration in canine gliomas

期刊

VETERINARY PATHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 952-963

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/03009858211023946

关键词

astrocytoma; brain; dogs; cancer; immunohistochemistry; immunology; lymphocytes; macrophages; oligodendroglioma

资金

  1. North Carolina State University's College of Veterinary Medicine
  2. NIEHS/NTP
  3. Charles River Laboratories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune evasion is crucial in the pathogenesis of glioma, with canine glioma showing a robust immune cell infiltrate. Different numbers of specific cells were found in low-grade and high-grade gliomas, suggesting potential therapeutic targets for repolarization of macrophages or Treg interference in canine glioma.
Evasion of the immune response is an integral part of the pathogenesis of glioma. In humans, important mechanisms of immune evasion include recruitment of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and polarization of macrophages toward an M2 phenotype. Canine glioma has a robust immune cell infiltrate that has not been extensively characterized. The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution of immune cells infiltrating spontaneous intracranial canine gliomas. Seventy-three formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples were evaluated using immunohistochemistry for CD3, forkhead box 3 (FOXP3), CD20, Iba1, calprotectin (Mac387), CD163, and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO). Immune cell infiltration was present in all tumors. Low-grade and high-grade gliomas significantly differed in the numbers of FoxP3+ cells, Mac387+ cells, and CD163+ cells (P = .006, .01, and .01, respectively). Considering all tumors, there was a significant increase in tumor area fraction of CD163 compared to Mac387 (P < .0001), and this ratio was greater in high-grade tumors than in low-grade tumors (P = .005). These data warrant further exploration into the roles of macrophage repolarization or Treg interference therapy in canine glioma.

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