4.6 Article

p63 expression in solid cell nests of the thyroid: Further evidence for a stem cell origin

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 43-48

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/01.MP.0000047306.72278.39

关键词

immunohistochemistry; p63; thyroid; ultimobranchial body

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid cell nests of the thyroid are embryonic remnants of endodermal origin that may be difficult to distinguish from squamous metaplasia, metastatic squamous carcinoma, papillary microcarcinoma, medullary carcinoma, and C-cell hyperplasia. These embryonic structures are composed of main cells and C-cells; cystic structures and mixed follicles are sometimes observed intermingled with solid cell nests. Recently, p63, a p53 homologue that is consistently expressed in basal/stem cells of stratified epithelia and plays a major role in triggering the differentiation of some specific cell lineages, has been characterized. We evaluated the immunohistochemical expression of p63, cytokeratins (CAM 5.2, AE1/AE3,34betaE12,7, and 20), carcinoembryonic antigen, thyroid transcription factor 1 (ITF-1), thyroglobulin, and calcitonin using the streptavidin-biotin-peroxidase complex technique in 6 bona fide solid cell nests. We observed that main cells of solid cell nests are strongly decorated by p63, while C-cells and all other thyroid structures were consistently negative. Moreover, main cells expressed carcinoembryonic antigen and all cytokeratins but cytokeratin 20 and lacked TTF-1, thyroglobulin and calcitonin. In contrast to this, C-cells of solid cell nests were immunoreactive for calcitonin, CAM 5.2, AE1/AE3, and cytokeratin 7; focal immunoreactivity for TIPF-1 was also observed in some C-cells. We conclude that main cells of the solid cell nests display a basal/stem cell phenotype (p63 and basal cytokeratin positivity), whereas C-cells show features of parafollicular differentiation. We conclude, furthermore, that p63 antibodies may help in distinguishing solid cell nests from their mimics.

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