4.6 Article

Decreased expression of gastric gland mucin-specific glycan α1,4-linked N-acetylglucosamine on its scaffold mucin 6 is associated with malignant potential of pyloric gland adenoma of the stomach

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 67, 期 6, 页码 898-904

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/his.12728

关键词

MIB-1 labelling index; mucin core protein; O-glycan; pyloric gland adenoma; tumour progression

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [24390086]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390086] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Pyloric gland adenoma (PGA) is a unique gastric neoplasm expressing mucin 6 (MUC6), and is often associated with high-grade dysplasia and/or adenocarcinoma. MUC6 secreted from the gastric gland mucous cells, such as pyloric gland cells, carries unique O-glycans with terminal alpha 1,4-linked N-acetylglucosamine (alpha GlcNAc) residues on its molecule. As we recently demonstrated that alpha GlcNAc serves as a tumour suppressor for gastric adenocarcinoma, this study aimed to investigate the significance of alpha GlcNAc expression in PGA. Methods and results: Eighteen patients with PGA were examined with immunohistochemistry for aGlcNAc and MUC6. alpha GlcNAc and MUC6 were co-expressed in 12 of 18 PGAs. However, reduced aGlcNAc expression relative to MUC6 expression was observed in six cases. When the MIB-1 labelling index (LI) of tumour cells was examined with respect to reduced alpha GlcNAc expression, the MIB-1 LI was significantly higher in PGAs showing decreased aGlcNAc expression relative to MUC6 expression than in PGAs with unchanged alpha GlcNAc expression (P = 0.023). Conclusions: The present study indicates that co-expression of alpha GlcNAc and MUC6 in PGA suggests the presence of fully glycosylated MUC6 on tumour cells, consistent with pyloric gland differentiation. However, the decreased glycosylation of alpha GlcNAc on MUC6 is associated with high mitotic activity of tumour cells, indicative of malignant potential of PGA.

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