CD34及CD105两种微血管标记物在瘢痕微血管构筑中的比较

Comparison of two microvessels markers CD34 and CD105 in microvasculature of pathological scars

背景:在瘢痕微血管构筑研究中,目前尚无可靠的瘢痕新生血管标记物。CD34和CD105是目前常用来标记微血管密度的一种方法,但两者又有各自特点。目的:比较CD34、CD105两种微血管标记物在病理性瘢痕微血管构筑方面的特征差异。方法:采用免疫组化的方法检测人正常皮肤、非病理性瘢痕、增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩内CD34、CD105的表达,采用图像分析软件测量阳性染色的微血管的内径、表达面积并分析以CD34、CD105标记的微血管的形态、分布特征。结果与结论:在所有标本内,CD34标记的微血管较为成熟,多表现为分支状、肝窦状及芽孢状,微血管内径平均值为(73.14±13.81)μm;CD105标记的微血管较为幼稚,多表现为圆形或镶嵌状,部分无管腔,微血管内径平均值为(27.91±5.86)μm。作为微血管标记物,CD105在标记瘢痕新生血管方面优于CD34,CD105可视作瘢痕新生血管可靠的标记物。

BACKGROUND： There is not a reliable neovascularization marker for pathological scar. Though CD34 and CD105 are considered to be a credible vascular endothelial cell marker, they have own specially features. OBJECTIVE： The difference between the two microvessels marker CD34 and CD105 in microvasculature of pathological scar. METHODS： Immunohistochemistcal staining for the CD34 and CD105 was performed in normal skin tissue specimens, non-pathological scar tissue specimens, hypertrophic scar tissue specimens and keloid tissue specimens, the internal diameter （ID） of microvessels marked by CD34 and CD105 and the expression area of CD34 and CD105 were measured by image analysis software Moticlmages Advanced 3.2, the morphology and distribution characteristics of mirovessels were analyzed after the photos taken by image acquisition instruments. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION： In all of specimens, the I D of microvessels marked by CD34 and CD105 were （73.14±17.85） μm and （27.91±5.86） μm, respectively, the microvessels marked by CD105 were newer than the microvessels marked by CD34. As an endothelial marker of angiogenesis, CD105 is a more special marker for neovascularization than CD34 in pathological scar, CD105 could be considered to be a credible neovascularization marker.