4.3 Article

Detecting cell-in-cell structures in human tumor samples by E-cadherin/CD68/CD45 triple staining

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 6, 期 24, 页码 20278-20287

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.4275

关键词

cell-in-cell structures; cell cannibalism; EML method; epithelium; macrophage

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB553704]
  2. National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for Significant New Drugs Development [2015ZX09501-009]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81472588, 81272899, 81172534]
  4. Pioneer Research Foundation
  5. Beijing Institute of Biotechnology
  6. Pioneer Project for Young Scientist of Military Biomedicine [14QNP119]
  7. Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support [XMLX201413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although Cell-in-cell structures (CICs) had been documented in human tumors for decades, it is unclear what types of CICs were formed largely due to low resolution of traditional way such as H&E staining. In this work, we employed immunofluorescent method to stain a panel of human tumor samples simultaneously with antibodies against E-cadherin for Epithelium, CD68 for Macrophage and CD45 for Leukocytes, which we termed as EML method based on the cells detected. Detail analysis revealed four types of CICs, with tumor cells or macrophage engulfing tumor cells or leukocytes respectively. Interestingly, tumor cells seem to be dominant over macrophage (93% vs 7%) as the engulfer cells in all CICs detected, whereas the overall amount of internalized tumor cells is comparable to that of internalized CD45(+) leukocytes (57% vs 43%). The CICs profiles vary from tumor to tumor, which may indicate different malignant stages and/or inflammatory conditions. Given the potential impacts different types of CICs might have on tumor growth, we therefore recommend EML analysis of tumor samples to clarify the correlation of CICs subtypes with clinical prognosis in future researches.

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

4.3
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