Discovery and genetic characterization of intestinal metaplasia in the Helicobacter felis-infected mouse model of gastric cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-222
Author(s):  
Jiangrong Chen ◽  
Chunchao Zhu ◽  
Chaojie Wang ◽  
Xiaodan Zhang ◽  
Jian Ni ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 3061-3061
Author(s):  
Hai-Yi Feng ◽  
Yunpeng Zhang ◽  
Hai-Jun Liu ◽  
Xiao Dong ◽  
Si-Cong Yang ◽  
...  

Life Sciences ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 219 ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangyu Li ◽  
Yiran Zhang ◽  
Enjun Xie ◽  
Xiang Yang ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hai‑Yi Feng ◽  
Yunpeng Zhang ◽  
Hai‑Jun Liu ◽  
Xiao Dong ◽  
Si‑Cong Yang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1365-E1370
Author(s):  
Hon Chi Yip ◽  
Noriya Uedo ◽  
Shannon M. Chan ◽  
Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh ◽  
Simon Kin Hung Wong ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Atrophic gastritis (AG) and intestinal metaplasia (IM) are premalignant conditions of gastric cancer and endoscopic recognition and characterization may help in stratifying the gastric cancer risk for screening and surveillance. However, there is currently lack of consensus in defining the severity of AG and IM. We aimed to conduct an international survey to understand the current practice of endoscopists worldwide. Methods An online survey was designed to collect data regarding participants’ practice in endoscopic assessment of AG & IM. A test using images was conducted to evaluate the difference in accuracy of characterization of AG & IM. Results From July to October 2017, 249 endoscopists responded to the survey. Around 70 % of participants received some form of training on recognition of AG & IM. There was significant variety in the training received across different continents. One hundred seventy-six participants (70 %) would document the presence of both AG and IM, but the classification systems used were inconsistent between endoscopists. Overall accuracy in diagnosis of AG & IM in the image test was 84.5 % and 80.7 % respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher among Japanese and Korean endoscopists compared to the rest of the world. Conclusion Training regarding endoscopic recognition of AG & IM differs significantly in different parts of the world. The difference in diagnostic accuracy for these premalignant gastric conditions may also explain the discrepancy in the early cancer detection rates among different countries. A simple unified classification system may be beneficial for better stratification of cancer risks.


2019 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-926
Author(s):  
Lois A. Balmer ◽  
Rhiannon Whiting ◽  
Caroline Rudnicka ◽  
Linda A. Gallo ◽  
Karin A. Jandeleit ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Dong Yuming ◽  
Yang Guanglin ◽  
Wu Jifeng ◽  
Chen Xiaolin

On the basis of light microscopic observation, the ultrastructural localization of CEA in gastric cancer was studied by immunoelectron microscopic technique. The distribution of CEA in gastric cancer and its biological significance and the mechanism of abnormal distribution of CEA were further discussed.Among 104 surgically resected specimens of gastric cancer with PAP method at light microscopic level, the incidence of CEA(+) was 85.58%. All of mucinous carcinoma exhibited CEA(+). In tubular adenocarcinoma the incidence of CEA(+) showed a tendency to rising with the increase of degree of differentiation. In normal epithelia and intestinal metaplasia CEA was faintly present and was found only in the luminal surface. The CEA staining patterns in cancer cells were of three types--- cytoplasmic, membranous and weak reactive type. The ultrastructural localization of CEA in 14 cases of gastric cancer was studied by immunoelectron microscopic technique.There was a little or no CEA in the microvilli of normal epithelia. In intestinal metaplasia CEA was found on the microvilli of absorptive cells and among the mucus particles of goblet cells. In gastric cancer CEA was also distributed on the lateral and basal surface or even over the entire surface of cancer cells and lost their polarity completely. Many studies had proved that the alterations in surface glycoprotein were characteristic changes of tumor cells. The antigenic determinant of CEA was glycoprotein, so the alterations of tumor-associated surface glycoprotein opened up a new way for the diagnosis of tumors.


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A166-A166
Author(s):  
S FUJII ◽  
T KUSAKA ◽  
T KAIHARA ◽  
Y UEDA ◽  
T CHIBA ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 221 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Vagkopoulou ◽  
C Eckert ◽  
U Ungethüm ◽  
G Körner ◽  
M Stanulla ◽  
...  

Tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) was isolated for the first time in Sweden in 1958 (from ticks and from 1 tick-borne encephalitis [TBE] patient).1 In 2003, Haglund and colleagues reported the isolation and antigenic and genetic characterization of 14 TBEV strains from Swedish patients (samples collected 1991–1994).2 The first serum sample, from which TBEV was isolated, was obtained 2–10 days after onset of disease and found to be negative for anti-TBEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), whereas TBEV-specific IgM (and TBEV-specific immunoglobulin G/cerebrospinal fluid [IgG/CSF] activity) was demonstrated in later serum samples taken during the second phase of the disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document