| Literature DB >> 29025424 |
Le Ying1,2, Feng Yan1,3, Qiaohong Meng3, Xiangliang Yuan1, Liang Yu4, Bryan R G Williams5, David W Chan6, Liyun Shi7, Yugang Tu8, Peihua Ni1, Xuefeng Wang9, Dakang Xu10,11,12, Yiqun Hu13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding immune phenotypes and human gastric disease in situ requires an approach that leverages multiplexed immunohistochemistry (mIHC) with multispectral imaging to facilitate precise image analyses.Entities:
Keywords: Human gastric disease; Immune phenotypes; Multiplexed immunohistochemistry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29025424 PMCID: PMC5639762 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-017-1311-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Comparison between IHC staining and 4-color mIHC staining of paraffin-embedded gastric cancer tissue (× 10). a–c IHC staining of CD8 (1:500), Foxp3 (1:350) and PD-L1 (1:250). d, e 4-color mIHC staining of CD8a (1:500), Foxp3 (1:350) and PD-L1 (1:250). DAPI was used to visualize nuclei (blue color), FITC corresponds to PD-L1 (green color), Cy3 represents Foxp3 (yellow color), and Cy5 indicates CD8 (red color)
Fig. 2mIHC images with individual channels in gastric cancer tissues. a–c CD8 expression (red color) in gastric cancer tissues (a 10 × image; b × 20 image; c × 40 image). d–f Foxp3 expression (yellow color) in gastric cancer tissues (d × 10 image; e × 20 image; f × 40 image). g–i PD-L1 expression (green color) in gastric cancer tissues (g × 10 image; h × 20 image; i × 40 image). j–l Merge pictures of mIHC images (j × 10 image; k × 20 image; l × 40 image). m–o H&E staining images (m × 10 image; n × 20 image; o × 40 image). DAPI was used to visualize nuclei (blue color), FITC was used to visualize PD-L1 (green color), Cy3 indicates Foxp3 (yellow color), and Cy5 corresponds to CD8 (red color)
Fig. 34-color mIHC images of different samples (× 20). a Normal gastric mucosa tissue (Sample 24). b Gastric ulcer tissue (Sample 30). c Gastric intraepithelial neoplasia tissue (Sample 38). d Normal adjacent tissue (Sample 44). e Gastric cancer tissue (Sample 43). f Gastric cancer tissue (Sample 47)
Fig. 4Quantification of the CD8+T, Foxp3+, and PD-L1+ cells in 49 samples. a Number of CD8+ cells per mm2. b Number of Foxp3+ cells per mm2. c Average intensity of PD-L1 per mm2. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (nonparametric analysis). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 5Quantification of the CD8+T:Foxp3 and CD8+T:PD-L1 ratios, heatmap generated in Rstudio, and 4-color mIHC images (× 10). a CD8a+:Foxp3+ ratio. b CD8+T:PD-L1+ ratio. c Hierarchical clustering of CD8+T, Foxp3 and PD-L1. d Scanned image of Sample 9 (10 × ). e Scanned image of Sample 12 (× 10). f Scanned image of Sample 24 (× 10). g Scanned image of Sample 20 (× 10). All images were acquired on a Nikon C1 confocal microscope. h Hierarchical clustering of CD8+T:Foxp3 and CD8+T:PD-L1. The top region represents the hierarchical clustering results. The number in the lower region represents the sample number
Fig. 6The relationship between the expression of CD8, Foxp3 and PD-L1 in gastric cancer tissues. a Pearson correlation of CD8 and Foxp3 (the correlation coefficient was 0.479, p < 0.01). b Pearson correlation of PD-L1 and Foxp3 (the correlation coefficient was 0.473, p < 0.05). c Pearson correlation of PD-L1 and CD8 (the correlation coefficient was 0.236, p > 0.05). d Hierarchical clustering of CD8+T:Foxp3 and CD8+T:PD-L1 in 28 gastric cancer samples. The number in the lower region represents the sample number