May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Histopathological Findings and Immunohistochemical Expression of Vimentin, Cytokeratin 8 and Cytokeratin 18 in Freeze–Dried and Fresh–Frozen Preserved Human Amniotic Membranes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A.T. Dias
    Ophthalmology, McGill/UNIFESP, Montreal, PQ, Canada
  • M. Martins
    Ophthalmology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • A.A. S. L. Filho
    Ophthalmology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • A.N. Odashiro
    Ophthalmology, McGill/UNIFESP, Montreal, PQ, Canada
  • A.C. S. Lourenco
    Ophthalmology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • J.P. Gomes
    Ophthalmology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • R. Belfort, Jr.
    Ophthalmology, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • M.N. Burnier, Jr.
    Ophthalmology, McGill/UNIFESP, Montreal, PQ, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A.T. Dias, None; M. Martins, None; A.A.S.L. Filho, None; A.N. Odashiro, None; A.C.S. Lourenco, None; J.P. Gomes, None; R. Belfort , None; M.N. Burnier , None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 5049. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A.T. Dias, M. Martins, A.A. S. L. Filho, A.N. Odashiro, A.C. S. Lourenco, J.P. Gomes, R. Belfort, Jr., M.N. Burnier, Jr.; Histopathological Findings and Immunohistochemical Expression of Vimentin, Cytokeratin 8 and Cytokeratin 18 in Freeze–Dried and Fresh–Frozen Preserved Human Amniotic Membranes . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):5049.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To evaluate and compare histopathologic results and immunohistochemical expression of Vimentin, Cytokeratin 8 and Cytokeratin 18 obtained from freeze–dried (FD) and fresh–frozen (FF) preserved human amniotic membranes (HAM).

Methods: : A total of 64 samples of HAM, obtained from 4 immediate post–partum women, were evaluated. For each amniotic membrane, 8 samples were FD and 8 were FF. After 1, 7, 30 and 90 days, 2 samples from each group (freeze–dried and fresh–frozen) were analyzed by Hematoxilin & Eosin (HE) and Periodic Acid–Schiff (PAS) staining. Immunohistochemical expression of Vimentin in the conective tissue, Cytokeratin 8 and Cytokeratin 18 in the epithelium were also performed. The samples were classified semi–quantitatively according to degree of epithelial vacuolization (0–3), autolysis (0–3), integrity of basement membrane (0–2), and the expression of Vimentin, Cytokeratin 8 and Cytokeratin 18 (0–3). The mean scores of each feature were compared between each method and each placenta using independent samples t test and Anova test. A p–value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: : The average score and standard deviation for the semi–quantitative characteristics were calculated: Epithelial vacuolization: 1.25±0.84 (FD – n=32) and 2.38±0.79 (FF – n=32) Autolysis: 0.41±0.50 (FD – n=32) and 1.53±0.88 (FF– n=32) Integrity of basement membrane: 1.87±0.34 (FD – n=31) and 1.28±0.46 (FF – n=32) Vimentin: 2.55±0.57 (FD – n=31) and 1.31±0.74 (FF – n=32) Cytokeratin 8: 1.90±0.60 (FD – n=31) and 0.97±0.65 (FF – n=32) Cytokeratin 18: 2.50±0.51 (FD – n=30) and 1.34±0.48 (FF – n=32) Analysis of each of the antibodies’ expressions yielded statistically significant differences (p<0.001).

Conclusions: : Freeze–drying and fresh–freezing are effective methods for HAM preservation. Upon histopathological analysis and immunohistochemical evaluation of the specimens, FD proved to have a better preservation of its structure than FF.

Keywords: immunohistochemistry • pathology: experimental • cytokines/chemokines 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×