Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 583  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 555-560  

Immunohistochemical Expression of the Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Proteins E-cadherin and β-catenin in Grades of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Date of Submission23-Sep-2020
Date of Decision10-Oct-2020
Date of Acceptance18-Nov-2020
Date of Web Publication05-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Abikshyeet Panda
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_562_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: E-Cadherin/β-Catenin protein complexes play a major role in epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and vice versa. Such types of EMT are implicated physiologically during embryonic development and pathologically in tissue fibrosis and tumorigenesis. Aims: The aim was the evaluation of E-Cadherin and β-Catenin immunoreactivity in various grades of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and to correlate their pattern of expression. Materials and Methods: Immunohistochemical expression of E-Cadherin/β-Catenin was evaluated in a total n = 30 tissue samples comprising of n = 10 well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (WDSCC), n = 10 moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (MDSCC), and n = 10 poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (PDSCC). Based on the intensity of staining, an immunoreactivity scoring was calculated. Statistical Analysis: The scorings obtained were subjected to independent t-test, paired t-test, Chi-square test, and ANOVA test using SPSS version 20.0 statistical analysis software. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A significant difference was observed in the expression of β-Catenin between normal mucosa and WDSCC; normal mucosa and MDSCC. A gradual decrease in the immunoreactivity score of E-Cadherin is seen in WDSCC, MDSCC, and PDSCC. Conclusion: Therefore, dysregulation of these proteins can lead to tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis. Further studies are warranted to specify the role of these EMT proteins as prognostic/therapeutic markers in patients suffering from OSCC.

Keywords: Cell adhesion, E-Cadherin, immunoreactivity, oral squamous cell carcinoma, β-Catenin


How to cite this article:
Kumar V, Panda A, Dash KC, Bhuyan L, Mahapatra N, Mishra P. Immunohistochemical Expression of the Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Proteins E-cadherin and β-catenin in Grades of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:555-60

How to cite this URL:
Kumar V, Panda A, Dash KC, Bhuyan L, Mahapatra N, Mishra P. Immunohistochemical Expression of the Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Proteins E-cadherin and β-catenin in Grades of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 20];13, Suppl S1:555-60. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/555/317532




   Introduction Top


Head and neck cancer accounts for >650,000 cases and 330,000 deaths annually.[1] Among these, oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is most common in the Indian subcontinent.[2],[3] The most accepted etiology for the high incidence of tumorigenesis are the habits of chewing tobacco, areca nut, and other allied products coupled with alcohol consumption and poor oral hygiene.[4],[5] The inability to repair damaged DNA due to mutation in proto-oncogene and Tumor Suppressor Gene results in genetic alteration causing cancer.[6],[7] More specifically, mutation in gene and protein controlling the cell cycle, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and cell adhesion aid in carcinogenesis.[8] Replacement of epithelial phenotype and downregulation of markers like E-Cadherin, desmoplakin, cytokeratins, claudins, and β-Catenin of tight intercellular junction by a mesenchymal phenotype that results in cancer progression, invasion and metastasis.[9],[10]

Cell to cell junction is crucial for maintaining the integrity and morphology of the squamous epithelium facilitated by a wide family of trans-membrane glycoproteins called cadherins amongst which the epithelial cadherin (E-Cadherin) plays a vital role in epithelial cell to cell adhesion.[11],[12] It is a 120 KDa, calcium-dependent transmembrane glycoprotein, the intracellular domain of which is linked to the actin and the catenins like α, β, γ -Catenins. B-Catenin is believed to be playing a major role in cell to cell junction by controlling the cadherin-mediated cell adhesion. The disruption of intercellular adhesion is a principal component in order to elicit invasive properties in malignant epithelial cells. In this regard, alteration in the E-Cadherin and β-Catenin complex is implicated in the oncogenesis.[11]

Segregation of β-Catenin from E-Cadherin in the cell membrane decreases cell–cell adhesion and increases cell migration and invasive properties of malignant cells.[13] E-Cadherin and β-Catenin protein complexes also participate actively in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) which is instrumental in cancer development.[14],[15],[16],[17]

This has persuaded us to evaluate the expression pattern of E-Cadherin and β-Catenin in different grades of OSCC.


   Materials and Methods Top


Sample size

A total of 30 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks previously diagnosed histologically as various grades of OSCC were retrieved from the department archives. For control, 10 normal oral mucosa samples were obtained from various patients who provided their consent for biopsy.

Sections of 4 μm were obtained from all the samples and were subjected to hematoxylin and eosin staining and were evaluated by three independent oral pathologists using Bryne's grading system, and afterward categorized into four groups with 10 cases each, namely Group 1 – well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (WDSCC), Group 2 – moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (MDSCC), Group 3 – poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (PDSCC), and Group 4 – normal oral mucosa.[18]

Immunohistochemical staining

4 μm thick sections were cut from the 40 FFPE blocks and were mounted on poly-L-lysin-coated positively charged slides. The slides were deparaffinized, rehydrated, and subjected to antigen retrieval using TRIS–EDTA buffer at pH 9.0. The slides were then incubated with primary anti-β-Catenin and anti-E-Cadherin rabbit monoclonal antibody (PathNSitu Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. California, USA). Afterward, the sections were treated by PolyExcel HRP/DAB detection systems (PathNSitu Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. California, USA). Human colon carcinoma and normal oral epithelium served, respectively as external and internal positive controls.

Immunohistochemical evaluation

The presence of brown-colored end products at the site of target antigen was suggestive of positive immunoreactivity [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]. E-Cadherin expression was evaluated in accordance with the presence or absence of membrane staining on the cell membrane. β-Catenin expression evaluated on the basis of the membrane as well as cytoplasmic staining. Immunoreactivity was semiquantitatively assessed in conformity with the staining intensity and distribution applying the immune reactive score as adapted from Balasundaram et al.,[19] the immunoreactivity score (IRS) was a multiplication product of intensity score and proportion score. The intensity score was defined as; 0: negative, 1: weak, 2: moderate, and 3: strong. The proportion score was defined as; 0: negative, 1: <10% positive cells, 2: 10%–50% positive cells, 3: 50%–80% positive cells, and 4: >80% positive cells. The total score ranged from 0 to 12. Immunoreactivity was divided into three groups based on the final score. Negative immunoreactivity grade (IRG) was interpreted as a total score of 0. A total score of 1–4 was defined as low IRG. Moderate IRG was determined as a total sum of 5–8 and high IRG was specified as a total score of 9–12. Cytoplasmic staining of β-Catenin was performed based on counting the number of positive cells per 50 membrane positive cells. 5 representative fields were counted for all the above assessments and arranged and tabulated.
Figure 1: E-Cadherin expression (a-d) and β-Catenin expression (a1-d1) in well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. (a and a1) Negative expression, (b and b1) weak expression, (c and c1) moderate expression, (d and d1) strong expression (×100)

Click here to view
Figure 2: E-Cadherin expression (a-c) and β-Catenin expression (a1-c1,) in moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. (a and a1) weak expression, (b and b1) moderate expression, (c and c1) strong expression (×100)

Click here to view
Figure 3: E-Cadherin expression (a-c) and β-Catenin expression (a1-c1) in poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. (a and a1) weak expression, (b and b1) moderate expression, (c and c1) strong expression (×100)

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The results obtained were subjected to independent t-test, paired t-test, Chi-square test, and ANOVA test. All the statistical tests were carried out using IBM corp. SPSS software version 20.0, Armonk, New York for Windows. A P = 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


   Results Top


A total of 40 samples were considered for the study, among which 26 were male and 14 were female, with a mean age of 47.23 + 12.01 and 57.71 ± 12.97, respectively. There was a definite decrease in the E-Cadherin IRS with a mean of 6.40 ± 4.006 in WDSCC, 6.30 ± 3.773 in MDSCC, and 5.30 ± 4.138 in PDSCC when compared with normal oral mucosa which had a mean score of 11.20 ± 1.687. This difference was statistically significant [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparison of expression of E-Cadherin and β-Catenin in normal epithelium with various grades of squamous cell carcinoma based on immunoreactivity score

Click here to view


The β-Catenin IRS for normal mucosa was 9.20 ± 1.932. There was an obvious decrease in β-Catenin IRS in WDSCC and MDSCC with a mean of 4.10 ± 3.872 and 4.80 ± 3.155, respectively. There was a significant difference observed between normal mucosa and WDSCC as well as between normal mucosa and MDSCC. No significant difference in β-catenin expression was seen between PDSCC and normal mucosa as evident in [Table 1].

Chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference established between various grades of SCC and IRG [Table 2]. When the E-Cadherin IRS across various grades of SCC was analyzed using ANOVA, it failed to establish any significant variance. However, the IRS what is it of β–Catenin showed a statistically significant increase in score with P = 0.009 from WDSCC to MDSCC to PDSCC [Table 3].
Table 2: E-Cadherin and β-Catenin expression across various grades of squamous cell carcinoma

Click here to view
Table 3: Variation of E-Cadherin and β-Catenin expression across various grades of squamous cell carcinoma

Click here to view


When E-Cadherin expression was compared with β-Catenin expression across various grades of OSCC, no significant difference was noticed in WDSCC and MDSCC, whereas in PDSCC, there was a significant increase in β-Catenin expression noticed when compared with E-Cadherin expression with a mean difference of − 3.7 (P = 0.00) [Table 4].
Table 4: Comparison between E-Cadherin expression and β-Catenin expression across grades of squamous cell carcinoma

Click here to view


ANOVA test shows a significant increase in number of cytoplasmic positivity per 50 β Catenin positive cells across grades of OSCC (p=0.001). The mean of cytoplasmic expression in normal mucosa was 3.70 ± 2.584, but in WDSCC, it was 7.10 ± 5.915; in MDSCC, it was 15.0 ± 14.438; and in PDSCC, it was 21.7 ± 11.729 [Table 5].
Table 5: Analysis of number of β-Catenin cytoplasmic positivity per 50 β-Catenin positive cells across grades of squamous cell carcinoma

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Dysregulation of E-Cadherin and β-Catenin is the turning point in tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis.

With this in the background, immunohistochemical staining for E-Cadherin and β-Catenin was performed and the slides were evaluated for positive immunoreactivity. In normal oral mucosa, there was a distinct and crisp E-Cadherin expression observed in the cell membrane of the basal layer, suprabasal layer, and spinous layer. The superficial layers were devoid of expression. Similar findings were also noted by Kaur et al. and Liu et al.[12],[20] β-Catenin also had a similar kind of expression in normal oral mucosa with a crisp and distinct immunostaining evident in the cell membrane of basal suprabasal and spinous layer. Many cells also showed cytoplasmic positivity. However, Liu et al. noticed β-Catenin expression only in the basal and suprabasal layers.[20]

When E-Cadherin expression was evaluated in normal oral mucosa and various grades of OSCC, it was found that there was a significant decrease in E-Cadherin expression in various grades of SCC. The reduced expression was found to be statistically significant and there was a downward progress in the expression pattern noticed. Similar findings were noticed by Mayer et al. who reported that 92% of the primary OSCC showed reduced expression of E-Cadherin.[21] Balasundaram et al. and Mehendiratta et al. also reported decreased E-Cadherin expression in OSCC.[19],[22] Many researchers also found a decreased β-Catenin expression in OSCC.[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32] When we evaluated β-Catenin expression in normal mucosa and various grades of SCC, there was an obvious decrease in expression noticed in WDSCC and MDSCC. But in PDSCC, the β-Catenin expression was quite comparable with normal oral mucosa without any statistically significant difference.

When the IRS of β-Catenin across various grades of squamous cell carcinoma was evaluated, a statistically significant increase in score was noticed. This was against the findings of Zaid, who noticed a gradual decrease in β-Catenin expression with decrease in histopathological grades.[11] Our finding was also against the findings of Zhao et al. who noticed a significant reduction in the expression of β-Catenin expression across decreasing grades of SCC.[33] Tanaka et al. fail to elicit any difference in β-Catenin expression when histopathological grades were considered.[34]

When E-Cadherin expression was compared with β-Catenin expression in different grades of OSCC, no significant difference was noticed in WDSCC and MDSCC. But in PDSCC, β-Catenin shows an increase in expression which was inversely proportional in relation to E-Cadherin expression.

Various authors have outlined the positive cytoplasmic expression of β-Catenin in SCC.[11],[31],[34],[33],[35],[36] Zaid reported an increase in cytoplasmic expression from WDSCC to MDSCC to PDSCC.[11] We also evaluated β-Catenin expression in the cytoplasm by counting the number of cells showing cytoplasmic expression among 50 membrane positive cells. Increased cytoplasmic expression of β-catenin was noticed from normal mucosa to PDSCC and this was in accord with the findings of Freitas et al and lopes et al.[31],[35] Hence, it can be said that the membranous β-Catenin moves to the cytoplasmic compartment and increases its potential in activating the tumoral gene transcription.[11],[36] Zhao et al. in their study suggested that loss in adhesion of E-Cadherin may cause a redistribution of β-Catenin from the cell membrane to the cytoplasm.[33] This may explain our findings as well.

In a stable epithelial cell, if β-catenin detaches from E- Cadherin, it becomes soluble leading to various cell signaling pathways.[11] The present study outlines a decreased expression of E-Cadherin in OSCC which explains the malignant and invasive nature of the neoplasm. But a decreasing trend in expression was not established in decreasing grades of histological differentiation. β-Catenin on the other hand showed an increasing trend in expression in decreasing grade of histodifferentiation. PDSCC showed higher β-Catenin expression both in the membrane and cytoplasm. There was a high level of cytoplasmic expression noticed in PDSCC. Release of β-Catenin from E-Cadherin causes decreased cell adhesion, increased cell migration, and invasiveness.[13] In EMT, there is a loss of epithelial marker proteins such as E-Cadherin, zonula occludens-1, and cytokeratin and gain of a mesenchymal phenotype with expression of mesenchymal proteins, namely vimentin, α-smooth muscle actin, and fibroblast-specific protein-1, along with the production of interstitial matrix components type I collagen and fibronectin.[14],[15] Hence, the loss of cell-cell adhesion promotes EMT and is linked with the etiopathogenesis of diseases involving EMT.

In the present study, we can conclude that there is a decreased expression of E-Cadherin in OSCC which proves that E-Cadherin downregulation may lead to loss of cellular adhesion resulting in noncohesive tumor cells ideal for deeper infiltration and invasion. But strangely, we found an increased cytoplasmic β-Catenin expression. Hence, it can be inferred that β-Catenin is breaking away from the membrane E-Cadherin complex and overexpressing in cytoplasm facilitating cellular dedifferentiation, tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis at the molecular signaling level.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Stenson KM, Brockstein BE, Shah S. Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Head and Neck Cancer. 2020. Available from: https:// www.uptodate.com/contents/epidemiology-and-risk-factors-forhead-and-neck-cancer. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 05].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Coelho KR. Challenges of the oral cancer burden in India. J Cancer Epidemiol 2012;2012:701932.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rodu B, Jansson C. Smokeless tobacco and oral cancer: A review of the risks and determinants. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:252-63.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Su CC, Yang HF, Huang SJ, Lian IeB. Distinctive features of oral cancer in Changhua County: High incidence, buccal mucosa preponderance, and a close relation to betel quid chewing habit. J Formos Med Assoc 2007;106:225-33.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mehrotra R, Yadav S. Oral squamous cell carcinoma: Etiology, pathogenesis and prognostic value of genomic alterations. Indian J Cancer 2006;43:60-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Pitiyage G, Tilakaratne WM, Tavassoli M, Warnakulasuriya S. Molecular markers in oral epithelial dysplasia: Review. J Oral Pathol Med 2009;38:737-52.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ziober AF, Falls EM, Ziober BL. The extracellular matrix in oral squamous cell carcinoma: Friend or foe? Head Neck 2006;28:740-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nawshad A, Lagamba D, Polad A, Hay ED. Transforming growth factor-beta signaling during epithelial-mesenchymal transformation: Implications for embryogenesis and tumor metastasis. Cells Tissues Organs 2005;179:11-23.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ingber DE. Cancer as a disease of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and extracellular matrix regulation. Differentiation 2002;70:547-60.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Zaid KW. Immunohistochemical assessment of E-cadherin and β-catenin in the histological differentiations of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:8847-53.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kaur G, Carnelio S, Rao N, Rao L. Expression of E-cadherin in primary oral squamous cell carcinoma and metastatic lymph nodes: An immunohistochemical study. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:71-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
13.
Hülsken J, Birchmeier W, Behrens J. E-cadherin and APC compete for the interaction with beta-catenin and the cytoskeleton. J Cell Biol 1994;127:2061-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Rastaldi MP. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its implications for the development of renal tubulointerstitial fibrosis. J Nephrol 2006;19:407-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Savagner P. Leaving the neighborhood: Molecular mechanisms involved during epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Bioessays 2001;23:912-23.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Wu Y, Zhou BP. New insights of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) 2008;40:643-50.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Cardiff RD. Epithelial to Mesenchymal transition tumors: Fallacious or snail's pace? Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:8534-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Doshi NP, Shah SA, Patel KB. Histological grading of oral cancer: A comparison of different systems and their relation to lymph node metastasis. Natl J Commun Med 2011;2:136-42.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Balasundaram P, Singh MK, Dinda AK, Thakar A, Yadav R. Study of β-catenin, E-cadherin and vimentin in oral squamous cell carcinoma with and without lymph node metastases. Diagn Pathol 2014;9:145.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Liu LK, Jiang XY, Zhou XX, Wang DM. Song XL, Jiang HB. Upregulation of Vimentin and Aberrant expression of E-Cadherin/β-Catenin complex in oral squamous cell carcinomas: Correlation with the clinicopathological features and patient outcome. Modern Pathol 2010;23:213-24.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mayer B, Johnson JP, Leitl F, Jauch KW, Heiss MM, Schildberg FW, et al. E-cadherin expression in primary and metastatic gastric cancer: Down-regulation correlates with cellular dedifferentiation and glandular disintegration. Cancer Res 1993;53:1690-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Mehendiratta M, Solomon MC, Boaz K, Guddattu V, Mohindra A. Clinico-pathological correlation of E-cadherin expression at the invasive tumor front of Indian oral squamous cell carcinomas: An immunohistochemical study. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2014;18:217-22.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Christofori G. New embo Member's review: Changing neighbours, changing behaviour: Cell adhesion molecule-mediated signalling during tumour progression. EMBO J 2003;22:2318-23.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Schipper JH, Frixen UH, Behrens J, Unger A, Jahnke K, Birchmeier W. E-cadherin expression in squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck: Inverse correlation with tumor dedifferentiation and lymph node metastasis. Cancer Res 1991;51:6328-37.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Chow V, Yuen AP, Lam KY, Tsao GS, Ho WK, Wei WI. A comparative study of the clinicopathological significance of E-cadherin and catenins (alpha, beta, gamma) expression in the surgical management of oral tongue carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2001;127:59-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lim SC, Zhang S, Ishii G, Endoh Y, Kodama K, Miyamoto S, et al. Predictive markers for late cervical metastasis in stage I and II invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:166-72.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Hirohashi S, Kanai Y. Cell adhesion system and human cancer morphogenesis. Cancer Sci 2003;94:575-81.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Rangarajan ES, Izard T. α-Catenin unfurls upon binding to vinculin. J Biol Chem 2012;287:18492-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Wnt/β-catenin Signaling. Cell Signaling Technology. November, 2010.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bánkfalvi A, Krassort M, Végh A, Felszeghy E, Piffkó J. Deranged expression of the E-cadherin/beta-catenin complex and the epidermal growth factor receptor in the clinical evolution and progression of oral squamous cell carcinomas. J Oral Pathol Med 2002;31:450-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Freitas RA, Silveira EJ, Silveira JP, Silva FM, Amorim RF. Correlation of ß-catenin expresssion and metastasis in tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Cir Bras 2010;25:513-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Hanemann JA, Oliveira DT, Nonogaki S, Nishimoto IN, Carli ML, Landman G, et al. Expression of E-cadherin and β-catenin in basaloid and conventional squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: Are potential prognostic markers? BMC Cancer 2014;14:395.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Zhao XJ, Li H, Chen H, Liu YX, Zhang LH, Liu SX, et al. Expression of e-cadherin and β-catenin in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Relationships with prognosis. World J Gastroenterol 2003;9:225-32.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Tanaka N, Odajima T, Ogi K, Ikeda T, Satoh M. Expression of E-cadherin, α-catenin, and β-catenin in the process of lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2003;89:557-63.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Lopes FF, da Costa Miguel MC, Pereira AL, da Cruz MC, de Almeida Freitas R, Pinto LP, et al. Changes in immunoexpression of E-cadherin and beta-catenin in oral squamous cell carcinoma with and without nodal metastasis. Ann Diagn Pathol 2009;13:22-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Rosado P, Lequerica-Fernandez P, Fernandez S, Allonca E, Villallain L, De Vicente JC. E-cadherin and β-catenin expression in well differentiated and moderately differentiated oral squamous cell carcinoma: Relations with clinical variables. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:149-56.  Back to cited text no. 36
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed76    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal