European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2014
MUC1 expression in fallopian tubes of women with hydrosalpinx.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Silva Alice L, Fuhrich Daniele G, Carson Daniel D, Engel Brian J, Savaris Ricardo F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the expression of MUC1 in Fallopian tubes with or without hydrosalpinx, using four different types of antibody.
STUDY DESIGN: In a case-control study, immunohistochemical expression of MUC1 was examined in Fallopian tubes derived from women with hydrosalpinx (n=10) and normal controls (n=10). Four different antibodies were used for the detection of both extracellular (214D4, HMFG1, VPM654) and intracellular (EPR1023) MUC1 epitopes. Staining intensity was measured with ImageJ software. Expression of MUC1 mRNA was quantified by quantitative RT-PCR. Statistical analysis was performed with Student t-test (mean ± SD) and Mann-Whitney U-test (median [range]).
RESULTS: The mean (±SD) and median [range] intensity of MUC1 in controls vs. hydrosalpinx were: 214D4-67.5 ± 11.3 vs. 74.8 ± 14.69 (P=0.22); HMFG1-95.3 [642-1079] vs. 97.0 [502-1550] (P=0.91); VPM654-41.1 [314-914] vs. 46.0 [390-1424] (P=0.1); EPR1023-24.7 ± 7.3 vs. 57.4 ± 31.3 (P=0.01). MUC1 mRNA was 0.16 [008-05] vs. 0.09 [005-019] (P=0.06). Ectodomains and mRNA of MUC1 are unchanged in tubes from hydrosalpinx patients. In contrast, immunodetection of the MUC1 cytoplasmic tail is enhanced in tubes from hydrosalpinx.
CONCLUSION: Fallopian tubes with hydrosalpinx have a selective accumulation of MUC1 cytoplasmic tail, but not difference in the ectodomain.
STUDY DESIGN: In a case-control study, immunohistochemical expression of MUC1 was examined in Fallopian tubes derived from women with hydrosalpinx (n=10) and normal controls (n=10). Four different antibodies were used for the detection of both extracellular (214D4, HMFG1, VPM654) and intracellular (EPR1023) MUC1 epitopes. Staining intensity was measured with ImageJ software. Expression of MUC1 mRNA was quantified by quantitative RT-PCR. Statistical analysis was performed with Student t-test (mean ± SD) and Mann-Whitney U-test (median [range]).
RESULTS: The mean (±SD) and median [range] intensity of MUC1 in controls vs. hydrosalpinx were: 214D4-67.5 ± 11.3 vs. 74.8 ± 14.69 (P=0.22); HMFG1-95.3 [642-1079] vs. 97.0 [502-1550] (P=0.91); VPM654-41.1 [314-914] vs. 46.0 [390-1424] (P=0.1); EPR1023-24.7 ± 7.3 vs. 57.4 ± 31.3 (P=0.01). MUC1 mRNA was 0.16 [008-05] vs. 0.09 [005-019] (P=0.06). Ectodomains and mRNA of MUC1 are unchanged in tubes from hydrosalpinx patients. In contrast, immunodetection of the MUC1 cytoplasmic tail is enhanced in tubes from hydrosalpinx.
CONCLUSION: Fallopian tubes with hydrosalpinx have a selective accumulation of MUC1 cytoplasmic tail, but not difference in the ectodomain.