COX-2在银屑病皮损中的表达及其与血管新生的关系

目的:检测环氧化酶-2(COX-2)在寻常型银屑病炎性皮损中的表达,并分析与血管新生的关系.方法:用免疫组织化学SP法检测30例寻常型银屑病炎性皮损组织和10例正常皮肤组织中COX-2、血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)的表达,并进行相关性分析.结果:寻常型银屑病炎性皮损中COX-2表达水平明显高于对照组(P<0.05),COX-2与VEGF表达呈正相关(r=0.866,P＜0.05).结论:寻常型银屑病炎性皮损中存在COX-2高表达,后者可能通过上调VEGF的表达促进银屑病皮损处血管新生,在寻常型银屑病进展期起重要作用.     

银屑病患者皮损中VEGF受体FLT-1和KDR的表达

目的:检测VEGF受体FLT-1与KDR在寻常型银屑病皮损中的表达水平,探讨其在银屑病发病中的意义。方法:应用免疫组化SABC法,检测37例寻常型银屑病患者皮损和37例正常人皮肤组织FLT-1蛋白、KDR蛋白的表达。结果:寻常型银屑病皮损处的FLT-1蛋白和KDR蛋白的表达水平明显强于正常对照组(P<0.001);KDR的表达强度与寻常型银屑病严重程度指数PASI评分有显著正相关(r=0.93,P<0.001),且KDR的表达强度高于FLT-1的表达强度(P<0.05)。结论:VEGF的两种受体FLT-1与KDR在银屑病新生血管形成中具有重要作用,其中KDR起主要作用。通过阻断VEGF受体KDR以抗血管生成,可望为治疗银屑病提供一种新的有效方法。     

红斑、丘疹及鳞屑性皮肤病

20062627银屑病患者皮损中VEGF受体FLT-1和KDR的表达/罗权(广州市皮防所),张锡宝,黄振明…∥中国麻风皮肤病杂志.-2006,22(2).-111~113采用免疫组化SABC法,检测37例寻常型银屑病患者皮损和37例正常人皮肤组织FLT-1蛋白、KDR蛋白的表达。结果寻常型银屑病皮损处的FLT-1蛋白和KDR蛋白的表达水平明显强于正常对照组(P<0.001);KDR的表达强度与寻常型银屑病严重程度指数PASI评分有显著正相关(P<0.001),且KDR的表达强度高于FLT-1的表达强度(P<0.05)。提示FLT-1与KDR在银屑病新生血管形成中具有重要作用。图4表1参9(惠海英)200…     

银屑病患者皮损中血管内皮生长因子和基质金属蛋白酶2的表达

目的探讨血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)、基质金属蛋白酶2(MMP-2)在寻常性银屑病皮损血管生成中的作用。方法采用免疫组化法检测30例寻常性银屑病皮损、12例非皮损和12例正常人皮肤中VEGF、MMP-2的表达水平与分布特征。结果①VEGF在银屑病皮损组织中阳性表达明显高于非皮损组织和正常人皮肤(P<0.05)。②MMP-2在银屑病皮损组织中的阳性表达明显高于非皮损组织和正常人皮肤(P<0.05)。③VEGF、MMP-2在银屑病皮损中表达呈正相关(P<0.05)。结论VEGF、MMP-2在寻常性银屑病发病的血管生成中可能起协同作用。     

促血管生成素-2和血管内皮生长因子在寻常型银屑病血管生成机制中的相关性研究

目的:探讨促血管生成素-2(Ang-2)和血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)在寻常型银屑病皮损组织及外周血中的表达,研究二者在寻常型银屑病发病中的作用和意义。方法:随机选择30例寻常型银屑病患者,应用免疫组织化学法检测皮损中的Ang-2及VEGF蛋白的表达情况,双抗体夹心酶联免疫吸附法检测其外周血血清中Ang-2及VEGF的水平,并与30例正常人比较。结果:与对照组比较,寻常型银屑病患者皮损处的Ang-2和VEGF的表达明显增强(2值分别为9.64、20.12,P值均<0.01),血清中Ang-2及VEGF水平亦明显升高(t值分别为3.49、4.76,P值均<0.05)。二者血清浓度变化与PASI评分呈正相关(r值分别为0.59、0.77,P值均<0.01)。结论:Ang-2和VEGF在寻常型银屑病血管形成中扮演着重要作用,二者可能通过协同作用发挥相互促进作用。     

miR-17-3p在寻常型银屑病患者中的表达研究

目的:研究miR-17-3p在寻常型银屑病皮损及外周血中的表达情况,探讨其参与寻常型银屑病的发病机制。方法:收集寻常型银屑病患者(17例)的皮损组织和外周血及正常对照组(4例)皮肤组织和外周血,提取miRNA。采用Real-time PCR技术检测miR-17-3p miRNA的表达并进行比较。免疫组化法检测寻常型银屑病皮损组织(25例)和正常皮肤组织(15例)中miR-17-3p的可能靶基因FNIP1蛋白的表达,Pearson相关分析银屑病患者外周血中miR-17-3p的表达水平与患者PASI评分的相关性。结果:Real-time PCR显示miR-17-3p miRNA在寻常型银屑病患者组皮损及外周血中表达量较正常对照组均明显降低(t值分别为34.62、9.16,P值均<0.05)。miR-17-3p外周血中表达量与患者PASI评分呈负相关(r=-0.56,P=0.019)。寻常型银屑病患者皮损中FNIP1蛋白表达阳性率明显高于对照组(X~2=9.72,P<0.05)。结论:寻常型银屑病患者皮损及外周血中miR-17-3p表达下调可能与银屑病的发病有关,miR-17-3p可能通过调节靶基因FNIP1参与银屑病发病。通过检测外周血中miR-17-3p的表达量可能可以评估患者病情严重程度。     

血清淀粉样蛋白A在寻常型银屑病皮损组织中的表达

目的探讨血清淀粉样蛋白A(SAA)在寻常型银屑病皮损组织中的表达及其意义。方法采用实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应(Real-time PCR)、免疫组化技术检测11例寻常型银屑病患者皮损组织及皮损周围组织、8例非银屑病患者的正常皮肤组织中SAA在mRNA和蛋白不同水平的表达情况。结果 Real-time PCR检测结果显示,银屑病皮损区SAA mRNA水平明显高于皮损周围组、正常对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。免疫组化显示3组皮损组织均有SAA蛋白表达,且寻常型银屑病组表达明显高于皮损周围组、正常对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论寻常型银屑病皮损组织中SAA在基因及蛋白水平表达均升高,提示SAA可能与寻常型银屑病的发生发展有关联。     

血管内皮生长因子在寻常型银屑病患者中医辨证分型皮损和血清中的表达

目的探讨血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)在寻常型银屑病患者中医辨证分型(血热型、血燥型和血瘀型)皮损和血清中的表达。方法采用免疫组化法和酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA法)对60例寻常型银屑病患者(中医辨证分型)皮损处及血清中VEGF的水平进行了检测。结果皮损处VEGF水平为血热型组>血燥型组及血瘀型组;血清中VEGF的水平为血热型组>血燥型组>血瘀型组。结论对寻常型银屑病患者皮损处及血清中VEGF水平的检测有可能用于血热型银屑病与非血热型银屑病的中医辨证分型。     

Stat3在进行期寻常型银屑病皮损表皮中的表达

目的观察信号转导和转录激活因子3(Stat3)在银屑病皮损中的表达情况。方法应用免疫组化法检测正常组织、进行期寻常型银屑病皮损及非皮损表皮中Stat3蛋白表达。结果正常表皮细胞中Stat3低水平表达于胞浆中;寻常型银屑病进行期皮损表皮中Stat3表达于多数细胞的胞浆和胞核中;非皮损处表皮中Stat3表达于部分细胞的胞浆和(或)胞核中。皮损处Stat3评分与PASI呈正相关。结论Stat3在进行期寻常型银屑病表皮中有异常表达。     

Ang-1及Tie-2在寻常型银屑病皮损中的表达及其意义

目的:检测血管生成素-1(Ang-1)及其酪氨酸激酶受体-2(Tie-2)在寻常型银屑病进行期皮损和正常皮肤组织中的表达.方法:应用免疫组化方法检测24例寻常型银屑病进行期皮损和12例正常人皮肤组织Ang-1和Tie-2蛋白的表达.结果:寻常型银屑病皮损组织中,Ang-1主要表达于银屑病受累皮肤真皮乳头层的基质细胞,Tie-2主要表达于受累皮肤表皮和高度血管化的真皮乳头层的内皮细胞及真皮深层其它区域的内皮细胞;在正常皮肤组织中,Ang-1表达极弱或呈阴性表达,Tie-2仅在真皮深层内皮细胞表达.寻常型银屑病进行期皮损处的Ang-1和Tie-2受体表达明显高于正常对照组(P＜0.01),Ang-1和Tie-2的表达呈正相关(P＜0.01).结论:Ang-1通过作用于Tie-2受体,参与促进银屑病皮损处的血管生成,与银屑病血管新生密切相关.     

Epidemiology and control and curable sexually transmitted diseases: opportunities and problems

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of safe and effective treatment, infection with bacterial sexually transmitted diseases persists at a high prevalence in many populations. GOAL: To review the difficulties of parameter estimation when a cure is readily available and to explore the impact of different treatment and screening strategies that might maximize the benefits of using available treatments. STUDY DESIGN: A standard deterministic model for the spread of a bacterial sexually transmitted disease that causes symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, in which the population is stratified according to sex and sexual activity, is further stratified into two host groups to enable the modeling of different treatment and screening strategies. RESULTS: In the presence of a core group, if an infection has a high transmission probability, then screening for asymptomatic infections has a short-lived benefit. Repeated screening is slightly better if it is not restricted to a fraction of the at-risk population, but targeting of high-risk groups should be effective. Screening to treat asymptomatic infections in men could be beneficial if a substantial fraction of cases remain asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: After the initial gains achieved through treating symptomatic infections, further reductions in the prevalence of infections can be achieved by finding asymptomatic infections. However, these gains are difficult to achieve, especially in the case of gonorrhea. Because men are likely to have an asymptomatic chlamydial infection, screening of men for chlamydia should be worthwhile.     

Understanding and Evaluating Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

A systematic review is a summary of existing evidence that answers a specific clinical question, contains a thorough, unbiased search of the relevant literature, explicit criteria for assessing studies and structured presentation of the results. A systematic review that incorporates quantitative pooling of similar studies to produce an overall summary of treatment effects is a meta-analysis. A systematic review should have clear, focused clinical objectives containing four elements expressed through the acronym PICO (Patient, group of patients, or problem, an Intervention, a Comparison intervention and specific Outcomes). Explicit and thorough search of the literature is a pre-requisite of any good systematic review. Reviews should have pre-defined explicit criteria for what studies would be included and the analysis should include only those studies that fit the inclusion criteria. The quality (risk of bias) of the primary studies should be critically appraised. Particularly the role of publication and language bias should be acknowledged and addressed by the review, whenever possible. Structured reporting of the results with quantitative pooling of the data must be attempted, whenever appropriate. The review should include interpretation of the data, including implications for clinical practice and further research. Overall, the current quality of reporting of systematic reviews remains highly variable.