4.2 Article

Immunohistochemical Markers for Prospective Studies in Neurofibromatosis-1 Porcine Models

期刊

JOURNAL OF HISTOCHEMISTRY & CYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 607-618

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1369/0022155417729357

关键词

antibody; formalin fixation; humans; immunohistochemistry; markers; neurofibromatosis type 1; pigs; tissues

资金

  1. Children's Tumor Foundation (NF1 Synodos)
  2. National Institutes of Health [P01HL051670, P01 HL091842, P30 DK054759]
  3. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common, cancer-predisposing disease caused by mutations in the NF1 tumor gene. Patients with NF1 have an increased risk for benign and malignant tumors of the nervous system (e.g., neurofibromas, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, gliomas) and other tissues (e.g., leukemias, rhabdomyosarcoma, etc.) as well as increased susceptibility to learning disabilities, chronic pain/migraines, hypertension, pigmentary changes, and developmental lesions (e.g., tibial pseudoarthrosis). Pigs are an attractive and upcoming animal model for future NF1 studies, but a potential limitation to porcine model research has been the lack of validated reagents for direct translational study to humans. To address that issue, we used formalin-fixed tissues (human and pigs) to evaluate select immunohistochemical markers (activated caspase-3, allograft inflammatory factor-1, beta-tubulin III, calbindin D, CD13, CD20, desmin, epithelial membrane antigen, glial fibrillary acidic protein, glucose transporter-1, laminin, myelin basic protein, myoglobin, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, S100, vimentin, and von Willebrand factor). The markers were validated by comparing known expression and localization in human and pig tissues. Validation of these markers on fixed tissues will facilitate prospective immunohistochemical studies of NF1 pigs, as well as other pig models, in a more efficient, reproducible, and translationally relevant manner.

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

4.2
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