4.5 Review

A subset of morphologically distinct mammary myoepithelial cells lacks corresponding immunophenotypic markers

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 R151-R156

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/bcr635

关键词

double immunohistochemical staining; myoepithelial cell layer; myoepithelial cell markers; myoepithelial-epithelial cell interaction

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Immunostaining for smooth muscle actin (SMA) is commonly used to elucidate mammary myoepithelial (ME) cells, whose presence or absence is a reliable criterion for differentiating in situ and invasive carcinomas. However, some morphologically distinct ME cells fail to stain for SMA. This study intended to assess whether these SMA-negative cells also lack the expression of other ME cell markers. Methods: Hematoxylin/eosin and SMA immunostained sections from 175 breast cancer patients were examined. Three cases were found to harbor ducts that showed morphologically distinct ME cell layers, but showed no SMA immunostaining in at least one-third of the layer or the entire layer. Eight additional consecutive sections from each case were stained for SMA, using a black chromogen, and each was then re-stained for one of eight additional markers supposed to exclusively or preferentially stain ME cells, using a red chromogen. SMA-negative ME cells were re-examined for the expression of other markers. Results: SMA-negative ME cells in two cases also failed to display immunoreactivity for other markers, including calponin, CD10, smooth muscle myosin heavy chain, protease inhibitor 5 ( maspin), Wilms' tumor-1, and cytokeratins 5, 14, and 17 (CK5, CK14, and CK17). However, in one case SMA-negative ME cells displayed immunoreactivities for maspin, CK5, CK14, and CK17. The distribution of these ME cells is independent of ductal size, length, and architecture. Conclusions: A subset of morphologically identifiable ME cells lack the expression of nine corresponding immunophenotypic markers, suggesting that ME cells might also be subject to different normal and pathological alterations.

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

4.5
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