4.6 Article

Cytokeratin 15 can be used to identify the limbal phenotype in normal and diseased ocular surfaces

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 47, 期 11, 页码 4780-4786

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0574

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To elucidate the expression pattern of K15, K19, K14, and K12 in human and mouse ocular surface epithelium as putative markers of epithelial phenotype. METHODS. Immunohistochemical staining with specific antibodies for K15, K19, K14, and K12 was performed in human donor cornea tissue and normal ICR mouse corneas, with emphasis on localization of immunopositive cells. Immunohistochemistry was performed in a limbus-deficient mouse model as well as in clinical samples of pannus surgically removed from a thermal burn and a patient with Saltzmann's dystrophy. Staining patterns were classified as limited to the most basal layer (K-bas), basal and suprabasal layers (Kbas-sup), predominantly in suprabasal layers (K-sup) and negative staining (K-). RESULTS. In human conjunctival epithelium, strong expression of K15 was observed in basal cells, whereas K19 was expressed in both basal and suprabasal layers (K15(bas)/K19(bas-sup)/K12(-)). Limbal epithelial cells were K15(bas-sup)/K19(bas-sup)/K12(sup), whereas epithelial cells in the central cornea were K15(-)/K19(bas-sup)/K12(bas-sup). In contrast, the mouse ocular surface demonstrated a different expression pattern of K15 and K19 than did the human tissue in the conjunctiva (K15(bas-sup)/K19(bas)/K12(-)) and the limbus (K15(bas-sup)/K19(bas)/K12(sup)). Neither K15 nor K19 was expressed in the central mouse cornea (K15(-)/K19(-)/K12(bas-sup)). Similar cytokeratin expression was observed in conjunctivalized corneas in mice and in surgically removed pannus tissue. CONCLUSIONS. Although the expression of K15 and K19 differ in humans and mice, specific staining patterns can be used to characterize the epithelial phenotype in normal and diseased ocular surface.

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