4.6 Article

Lack of evidence for basal or squamous cell carcinoma infection with Merkel cell polyomavirus in immunocompetent patients with Merkel cell carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2009.08.064

关键词

basal cell carcinoma; CM2B4; Merkel cell polyomavirus; squamous cell carcinoma; T antigen

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA136363, CA120726]
  2. AI Copeland Foundation
  3. University of Pittsburgh
  4. American Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV) was discovered by digital transcriptome subtraction as a monoclonal infection of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) tumors. Subsequent studies have repeatedly confirmed that MCV is the likely cause for most MCC. Polymerase chain reaction based detection of the virus in other nonmelanoma skin cancers, however, has been inconsistent and controversial. Objective: We sought to directly assay for MCV infection in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor cells by immunostaining for viral antigen. Methods: CM2B4, a monoclonal antibody to exon 2 peptides of MCV T antigen, was used to examine tumors from 20 patients with MCC with and without secondary SCC or BCC tumors. Results: MCV T antigen was readily detected in 15 (75%) of 20 MCC tumors including 11 MCC tumors from patients with secondary SCC or BCC. In contrast to MCC, none of these secondary BCC or SCC was MCV T-antigen positive. Limitations: A limitation was the small study size with antigen detection including only the MCV large T and 57kT proteins. Conclusions: MCV T antigen is generally not expressed in BCC or SCC tumors from a population favored to have MCV infection, ie, those persons already given the diagnosis of MCV-positive MCC. This suggests that episodic polymerase chain reaction detection of MCV genome in BCC or SCC tumors may represent coincidental rather than causal infection, and that these tumors share other noninfectious risk factors. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2010;63:400-3.)

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