North American journal of medical sciences · 2011
HAM56 and CD68 antigen presenting cells surrounding a sarcoidal granulomatous tattoo.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abreu Velez Ana Maria, Dejoseph Louis M, Howard Michael S
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Tattoos are produced by introducing colorants of various compositions into the skin, either accidentally or for cosmetic purposes.
CASE REPORT: A 62-year-old male presented with a cosmetic tattoo and requested a total excision of the lesion. Dermatopathologic analysis of the excised tissue with hematoxylin and eosin examination, as well as immunohistochemistry was performed. H&E staining demonstrated classic histologic features of a tattoo. Utilizing immunohistochemistry, dermal histiocytic antigen presenting cells stained with HAM56 and CD68 antibodies; the staining was present surrounding the tattoo pigment.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified two macrophage markers (HAM56 and CD68) surrounding dermal tattoo pigment. A minimal dermal inflammatory immune was noted to the tattoo pigment. Moreover, the immune response and/or tolerance to tattoos is not well characterized. We suggest that tattoo materials and techniques could be utilized in therapeutic delivery for diseases such recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, potentially preventing immune rejection of gene therapy agents.
CASE REPORT: A 62-year-old male presented with a cosmetic tattoo and requested a total excision of the lesion. Dermatopathologic analysis of the excised tissue with hematoxylin and eosin examination, as well as immunohistochemistry was performed. H&E staining demonstrated classic histologic features of a tattoo. Utilizing immunohistochemistry, dermal histiocytic antigen presenting cells stained with HAM56 and CD68 antibodies; the staining was present surrounding the tattoo pigment.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified two macrophage markers (HAM56 and CD68) surrounding dermal tattoo pigment. A minimal dermal inflammatory immune was noted to the tattoo pigment. Moreover, the immune response and/or tolerance to tattoos is not well characterized. We suggest that tattoo materials and techniques could be utilized in therapeutic delivery for diseases such recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, potentially preventing immune rejection of gene therapy agents.