Exposure to Systemic Immunosuppressive Ultraviolet Radiation Alters T Cell Recirculation through Sphingosine-1-Phosphate.

Systemic suppression of adaptive immune responses is a major way in which UV radiation contributes to skin cancer development. Immune suppression is also likely to explain how UV protects from some autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. However, the mechanisms underlying UV-mediated systemic immune suppression are not well understood. Exposure of C57BL/6 mice to doses of UV known to suppress systemic autoimmunity led to the accumulation of cells within the skin-draining lymph nodes and away from non-skin-draining lymph nodes. Transfer of CD45.1+ cells from nonirradiated donors into CD45.2+ UV-irradiated recipients resulted in preferential accumulation of donor naive T cells and a decrease in activated T cells within skin-draining lymph nodes. A single dose of immune-suppressive UV was all that was required to cause a redistribution of naive and central memory T cells from peripheral blood to the skin-draining lymph nodes. Specifically, CD69-independent increases in sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1-negative naive and central memory T cells occurred in these lymph nodes. Mass spectrometry analysis showed UV-mediated activation of sphingosine kinase 1 activity, resulting in an increase in S1P levels within the lymph nodes. Topical application of a sphingosine kinase inhibitor on the skin prior to UV irradiation eliminated the UV-induced increase in lymph node S1P and T cell numbers. Thus, exposure to immunosuppressive UV disrupts T cell recirculation by manipulating the S1P pathway.

B cells are required for sunlight protection of mice from a CNS-targeted autoimmune attack.

The ultraviolet (UV) radiation contained in sunlight is a powerful immune suppressant. While exposure to UV is associated with protection from the development of autoimmune diseases, particularly multiple sclerosis, the precise mechanism by which UV achieves this protection is not currently well understood. Regulatory B cells play an important role in preventing autoimmunity and activation of B cells is a major way in which UV suppresses adaptive immune responses. Whether UV-protection from autoimmunity is mediated by the activation of regulatory B cells has never been considered before. When C57BL/6 mice were exposed to low, physiologically relevant doses of UV, a unique population of B cells was activated in the skin draining lymph nodes. As determined by flow cytometry, CD1d(low)CD5(-)MHC-II(hi)B220(hi) UV-activated B cells expressed significantly higher levels of CD19, CD21/35, CD25, CD210 and CD268 as well as the co-stimulatory molecules CD80, CD86, CD274 and CD275. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in mice immunized with MOG/CFA was reduced by exposure to UV. UV significantly inhibited demyelination and infiltration of inflammatory cells into the spinal cord. Consequently, UV-exposed groups showed elevated IL-10 levels in secondary lymphoid organs, delayed EAE onset, reduced peak EAE score and significantly suppressed overall disease incidence and burden. Importantly, protection from EAE could be adoptively transferred using B cells isolated from UV-exposed, but not unirradiated hosts. Indeed, UV-protection from EAE was dependent on UV activation of lymph node B cells because UV could not protect mice from EAE who were pharmacologically depleted of B cells using antibodies. Thus, UV maintenance of a pool of unique regulatory B cells in peripheral lymph nodes appears to be essential to prevent an autoimmune attack on the central nervous system.

Photodamage: all signs lead to actinic keratosis and early squamous cell carcinoma.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is likely to drive the initiation and progression of skin cancer from actinic keratosis to squamous cell carcinoma. Signs of photodamage occur at multiple steps. UV radiation damages many cellular constituents, including lipids, proteins and DNA, all of which are likely to contribute to UV-induced skin cancer. Two biological events culminating from photodamage are mutations in the genes critical to the control of cell division, differentiation and invasion and immunosuppression. DNA photodamage, if unrepaired prior to cell division, can result in the incorporation of an incorrect nucleotide into newly synthesised DNA. Mutations in critical genes contribute to carcinogenesis. Photodamage to proteins such as those involved in DNA repair or proteins or lipids involved in cellular signalling can interfere with this repair process and contribute to mutagenesis. Mutations in key genes, including TP53, BRM, PTCH1, and HRAS, contribute to skin carcinogenesis. UV also damages immunity. Photodamage to DNA and signalling lipids as well as other molecular changes are detrimental to the key cells that regulate immunity. Photodamaged dendritic cells and altered responses by mast cells lead to the activation of T and B regulatory cells that suppress immunity to the protein products of UV-mutated genes. This stops the immune response from its protective function of destroying mutated cells, enabling the transformed cells to progress to skin cancer. UV appears to play a pivotal role at each of these steps, and therefore, signs of photodamage point to the development of skin cancer.

Inhibition of UV-induced uric acid production using allopurinol prevents suppression of the contact hypersensitivity response.

Exposure to solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation suppresses adaptive immune responses. This contributes to skin carcinogenesis but may protect from some autoimmune diseases. However, the molecular changes occurring within UV-exposed skin that precipitate the downstream events leading to immune suppression are not fully understood. Using a combination of in vitro and in vivo mouse models, we have discovered that UV induces significant cutaneous production of immune suppressive uric acid. The ability of UV-induced uric acid to inhibit a contact hypersensitivity response was successfully blocked by the gout-treating drug Allopurinol. Up-regulation of NLRP3 mRNA by UV was also found to be dependent on UV-induced uric acid. This suggested that the target of UV-induced uric acid included proteins involved in the formation and activation of the NLRP3-inflammasome. However, in contrast to NLRP3, the adaptor protein ASC, which is required for formation of the NLRP3-inflammasome, was significantly down-regulated. Furthermore, this down-regulation was not dependent on UV-induced uric acid production because Allopurinol treatment failed to prevent the reduction in ASC. Hence, our results identify uric acid as an important molecule involved in sterile UV-induced inflammation and immune suppression. UV-induced uric acid may therefore offer a unique therapeutic target for preventing and treating skin cancer.

Dermal mast cells affect the development of sunlight-induced skin tumours.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation contained in sunlight is considered a major risk in the induction of skin cancer. While mast cells are best known for their role in allergic responses, they have also been shown to play a crucial role in suppressing the anti-tumour immune response following UV exposure. Evidence is now emerging that UV may also trigger mast cell release of cutaneous tissue remodelling and pro-angiogenic factors. In this review, we will focus on the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which UV recruits and then activates mast cells to initiate and promote skin cancer development.

True cytokeratin 8/18 immunohistochemistry is of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas depends on the site of origin of the tumor. The purpose of this study was to make clear whether the immunohistochemistry of the true cytokeratin 8/18 monoclonal antibody (Leica Microsystems, Newcastle, United Kingdom), instead of CAM 5.2 (Becton Dickinson Biosciences, San Jose, CA), has potential use in distinguishing between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 34 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 endocervical adenocarcinomas and 20 endometrial adenocarcinomas. Using the Bond-Max autostainer (Leica Microsystems) and the associated Bond Refine Polymer Detection Kit, tissue array sections were immunostained with cytokeratin 8, 18, and 8/18 commercially available antibodies. The immunohistochemical expressions of all 3 markers, cytokeratin 8, 18, and 8/18 showed nonsignificant (P>0.05) frequency differences between the immunostaining results (positive vs. negative) in tumors of both gynecologic adenocarcinomas. Although CAM 5.2 has been reported to be helpful in distinguishing between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas, we could not verify this point of view using the true cytokeratin 8/18 monoclonal antibody (Leica Microsystems). It has often been mistakenly cited that CAM 5.2 reacts with cytokeratin 8 and 18, and the results herein confer that there is a wrong impression that cytokeratin 8/18 is differentially expressed in these 2 gynecologic malignancies. In conclusion, the true cytokeratin 8/18 monoclonal antibody is of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Gynecological pathologists are used to operating many panels of various markers in combination for the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. The conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is the most promising tool. In this study, our aim is to investigate whether a 2-marker panel is enough to distinguish between these two gynecologic malignancies. Additionally, we wish to determine which one is the most favorable among eight panels tested, including six 2-marker (ER/CEA, PR/CEA, Vim/CEA, ER/p16(INK4a), PR/p16(INK4a), Vim/p16(INK4a)) and two 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA, ER/Vim/p16(INK)) panels. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 primary endometrial adenocarcinomas. Utilizing the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR, and p16(INK4a)) to evaluate their individual frequencies of expression. We found that all eight aforementioned panels showed an encouraging range of overall accuracy (69.2% to 78.3%). However, one panel of 2-markers (Vim, CEA) exhibited the most efficiency (78.3%) in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Based on the analyzed data, we conclude that the 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel seems adequate to be an appropriate, convenient, and efficient means to distinguish between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Even though there were a limited number of cases, this study still provides valuable references to help avoid wasting resources and unnecessary marker testing.

A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. RESULTS: ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.

Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were defined on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). RESULTS: Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a significant difference (P=0.015), but Method C showed no significant (P=0.432) frequency differences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. CONCLUSION: According to the data of p16(INK4a) expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and efficient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.

Five commonly used markers (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) are of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depends on the tumor's site of origin. Some panels of antibodies help to distinguish primary ECA from EMA. However, unexpected expressions of those markers often exist, which causes this diagnostic dilemma to be still unresolved. In this study, we investigate five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) to evaluate their potential use in distinguishing between these two gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the five aforementioned commercially available antibodies. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical (IHC) expressions of p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12 were all nonsignificant (P>0.05) in frequency differences between the immunostaining results (positive vs. negative) in tumors from both the two primary adenocarcinomas (ECA vs. EMA). CONCLUSION: It is still uncertain which markers or panels would be the most appropriate for making diagnoses; hence, exploration of other useful markers, which make a definitive distinction between ECA and EMA merits further studies. This study, however, uncovered that the five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) are of no beneficial value in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

p16 INK4 and CEA can be mutually exchanged with confidence between both relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16 INK4) in distinguishing primary endometrial adenocarcinomas from endocervical adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

The accurate distinction between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) may require the use of multiple ancillary monoclonal antibodies in panels of immunohistochemistry stains. In addition to reappraising the expressions of four commonly used individual monoclonal antibodies [estrogen receptor (ER), Vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16(INK4)], this study was designed to investigate whether CEA and p16(INK4) can be effectively exchanged between two relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA vs. ER/Vim/p16(INK4)) in distinguishing ECA from EMA. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the four aforementioned individual markers (ER, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4)). In addition to the four individual monoclonal antibodies, both their respective three-marker panels, proposed here, showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between these two gynecologic tumors (ECA vs. EMA). The panel performance and test effectiveness revealed that both three-marker panels are promising and very helpful. According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend using either of these two conventional three-marker panels, which consist of ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16(INK4). CEA and p16(INK4) can be interchanged with confidence without significantly influencing the panel presentations and efficiencies in distinguishing between adenocarcinomas of endocervical and endometrial origin.

Adding the p16(INK4a) marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study.

OBJECTIVE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.

Scoring of p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry based on independent nuclear staining alone can sufficiently distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate four different scoring methods of p16(INK4a) immunohistochemical staining in distinguishing between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas from limited sizes of tissue specimens. A tissue microarray was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16(INK4a). Avidin-biotin complex method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemistry was evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. Of the four scoring methods for p16(INK4a) expression, Method Nucleus, Method Dominant Cytoplasm or Nucleus, and Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus showed significant (P values <0.05), but Method Cytoplasm did not show significant (P=0.432), frequency distinction between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas. In addition, Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus had the highest overall accuracy rate (80%) for diagnostic distinction among these four score-counting methods. According to the data in this tissue microarray study, Method Nucleus is the most convenient and efficient method to distinguish between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Although Method Dominant Cytoplasm or Nucleus as well as Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus also revealed statistically significant results, they are relatively more inconvenient due to complicated score calculating means on the basis of mixed cytoplasmic and nuclear p16(INK4a) expressions. Method Cytoplasm is of no use in the diagnostic distinction between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on either independent nucleic stain or mixed cytoplasmic with nucleic expression can significantly signal to distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate 3 different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16INK4a. Avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the IHC reactions was evaluated using the semi-quantitative scoring system. The 3 scoring methods were defined on the bases of the following: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone (Method C), (2) independent nucleic staining alone (Method N), and (3) mean of the sum of cytoplasmic score plus nucleic score (Method Mean of C plus N). RESULTS: Of the 3 scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N showed significant (p-values < 0.05), but Method C showed non-significant (p = 0.245) frequency differences between ECAs and EMAs. In addition, Method Mean of C plus N had the highest overall accuracy rate (81.6%) for diagnostic distinction among these 3 scoring methods. CONCLUSION: According to the data characteristics and test effectiveness in this study, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N can significantly signal to distinguish between ECAs and EMAs; while Method C cannot do. Method Mean of C plus N is the most promising and favorable means among the three scoring mechanisms.

Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

PURPOSE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4a)), but also evaluate whether p16(INK4a) adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16(INK4a) marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16(INK4a)-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Nuclear Receptor Interaction Protein (NRIP) expression assay using human tissue microarray and immunohistochemistry technology confirming nuclear localization.

BACKGROUND: A novel human nuclear receptor interaction protein (NRIP) has recently been discovered by Chen SL et al, which may play a role in enhancing the transcriptional activity of steroid nuclear receptors in prostate (LNCaP) and cervical (C33A) cancer cell lines. However, knowledge about the biological functions and clinical implications of NRIP, is still incomplete. Our aim was to determine the distribution of NRIP expression and to delineate the cell types that express NRIP in various malignant tumors and healthy non-pathological tissues. This information will significantly affect the exploration of its physiological roles in healthy and tumor cells. METHODS: By using tissue microarray (TMA) technology and an anti-NRIP monoclonal antibody immunohistochemical (IHC) survey, NRIP expression was examined in 48 types of tumors and in a control group of 48 matched or unmatched healthy non-neoplastic tissues. RESULTS: Our survey results showed that ten cases were revealed to express the NRIP in six malignancies (esophageal, colon, breast, ovarian, skin, and pancreatic cancers), but not all of these specific tumor types consistently showed positive NRIP expression. Moreover, malignant tumors of the stomach, prostate, liver, lung, kidney, uterine cervix, urinary bladder, lymph node, testis, and tongue revealed no NRIP expression. Among the control group of 48 matched and unmatched non-neoplastic tissues, all of them demonstrated IHC scores less than the cut-off threshold of 3. In addition, ten cores out of thirty-six carcinomatous tissues revealed positive NRIP expression, which indicated that NRIP expression increases significantly in carcinoma tissue cores, comparing to the matched controlled healthy tissues. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use a human TMA and IHC to validate the nuclear localization for this newly identified NRIP expression. In considering the use of NRIP as a potential diagnostic tool for human malignancies survey, it is important to note that NRIP expression carries a sensitivity of only 23%, but has a specificity of 100%. There is also a significant difference in positive NRIP expression between primary carcinomatous tissues and matched controlled healthy tissues. Although further large-scale studies will merit to be conducted to evaluate its role as a potential adjunct for cancer diagnosis, data from this study provides valuable references for the future investigation of the biological functions of NRIP in humans.

(-)-Menthol inhibits WEHI-3 leukemia cells in vitro and in vivo.

(-)-Menthol ([1-alpha]-5-methyl-2-[1-methylethyl]-cyclohexanol), is a widely used flavoring ingredient in mouthwash, foods, toothpaste and cigarettes. The studies reported here revealed that (-)-menthol induced cytotoxicity against murine leukemia WEHI-3 cells in vitro in a dose-dependent manner. The effects of (-)-menthol on WEHI-3 cells in vivo (BALBIc mice) were also examined, and it was observed that the Mac-3 and CD11b markers were decreased, indicating inhibition of differentiation of the precursor of macrophage and granulocyte. The weights of liver and spleen samples from mice treated with (-)-menthol were found to be decreased compared to untreated animals.

Diallyl disulfide inhibits WEHI-3 leukemia cells in vivo.

Enhanced garlic (Allium sativum) consumption is closely related to reduced cancer incidence, as shown in epidemiological studies. Diallyl disulfide (DADS), a component of garlic, inhibits the proliferation of human blood, colon, lung and skin cancer cells. Although DADS had been reported to induce apoptosis in human leukemia HL-60 cells, there are no reports regarding whether or not it affects leukemia cells in vivo. Therefore, the present study is focused on the in vivo effects of DADS on WEHI-3 leukemia cells. The effects of DADS on murine WEHI-3 cells were initially examined, and the results indicated that DADS induced cytotoxicity and that this effect was dose-dependent. The effects of DADS on WEHI-3 in BALBIc mice were also examined, and the results indicated that DADS decreased the percentage of MAC-3 marker, indicating that differentiation of the precursor of macrophage and T cells was inhibited. The weights of liver and spleen were also measured, and the results indicated that DADS decreased the weight of these organs. An important characteristic of WEHI-3 leukemia is the enlarged spleen in mice after i.p. injection of WEHI-3 cells. Based on pathological examination, the function of DADS was observed in the liver and spleen of mice previously injected with WEHI-3 cells. Apparently, DADS affects WEHI-3 cells both in vitro and in vivo.