4.6 Article

Collagen and elastic system in the remodelling process of major types of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIP)

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 413-421

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02103.x

关键词

collagen; diffuse alveolar damage; elastic fibres; extracellular matrix; idiopathic interstitial pneumonia; interstitial lung diseases; lung remodelling; non-specific interstitial pneumonia; organizing pneumonia; usual interstitial pneumonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Structural remodelling in acute and chronic idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) has been extensively investigated, but little attention has been directed to the elastic tissue in these situations. The aim of this study was to determine whether elastic deposition accompanies collagen deposition in the four major histological patterns of IIP: diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), organizing pneumonia (OP), non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) and usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). Methods and results: We measured, by image analysis, the content of fibres of the collagenous and elastic systems of the alveolar septum in histological slides of open lung biopsies, using the picrosirius-polarization method and Weigert's resorcin-fuchsin stain, respectively. Five groups were studied: 10 cases of DAD; nine cases of OP; nine cases of NSIP; and 10 cases of UIP. Four normal lungs were used for comparison. The content of collagen fibres was significantly higher in UIP when compared to DAD, NSIP, OP and normal lung. The content of elastic fibres was increased in comparison with normal lungs but this was not significantly different among the histological patterns. Conclusion: Acute and chronic IIP cause a similar increase in the collagen and elastic contents of the lungs, representing a process of 'fibroelastosis' rather than an exclusive process of fibrosis. A profibrogenic mechanism is responsible for the unparallelled collagen augmentation observed in UIP subjects, the nature of which is yet to be determined.

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