Horoscopic role of CD105 (Endoglin) in progression of oral lichen planus

Abstract

Context: Role of CD105(Endoglin) in Pathogenesis and progression of OLP. Aim: To assess the role of neoangiogenesis in the progression of OLP by determining the expression of CD105 in OLP and normal mucosa. Settings and Design: The present study includes a total of 70 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks of which the study group comprises 50 tissue sections histopathologically confirmed as OLP. They were subdivided into two groups - Group I (Reticular OLP) and Group II (Erosive OLP) - 25 each. The control group (designated as Group III) included 20 sections of normal mucosa. Materials and Methods: All the sections were 4 μm thick and stained with CD105 antibodies. After identifying areas of highest vascularity (hot spots) in low power (×10) magnification, individual microvessels were counted manually at high power (×40) magnification. Statistical Analysis Used: Analysis of variance test was used to determine the difference of microvessel density (MVD) between variants of OLP and normal mucosa and Cohen's kappa statistic was used to check interobserver variability. Results: CD105 staining showed a mean MVD of 1.31 ± 1.8 in the normal mucosa compared to 1.68 ± 1.4 and 4.14 ± 2.7 in the reticular and erosive variants, respectively, with a P = 0.000*, which is statistically significant (*P < 0.05 is statistically significant). Conclusion: Based on our observations, it is evident that compared to normal mucosa, MVD is greater in lichen planus. Within the two variants of OLP, MVD is higher in Erosive variant compared with Reticular variant, foreshadowing the role of neoangiogenesis in the progression of OLP and its possible malignant transformation.

An exotic pathogenetic mechanism of angiogenesis in oral lichen planus—A systematic review

“…Data regarding the quantitative assessment of angiogenesis from 21 studies 13–16,18,19,21–25,29–37,40 has been elaborated in Table S3. Thirteen 13,14,16,19,21,23,31–36,40 assessed the angiogenic status by calculating the microvessel density (MVD).…”

“…Data regarding the quantitative assessment of angiogenesis from 21 studies 13–16,18,19,21–25,29–37,40 has been elaborated in Table S3. Thirteen 13,14,16,19,21,23,31–36,40 assessed the angiogenic status by calculating the microvessel density (MVD). The MVD assessment was done by CD34 antibody CD34 in nine studies 13,19,21,23,32–36 whereas two 16,31 used CD105 to evaluate neo angiogenesis in OLP.…”

“…There was a mixed bag of protocols used for MVD evaluation. Twelve out of thirteen studies mentioned about the method of measurement out of which seven calculated MVD in 5 hotspot areas at 20× magnification, while the remaining five chose 40× with 3, 36 4 16,21,23 and 5 31 hotspot areas for evaluation, respectively. The mean area percent value and positively stained cells were evaluated in six studies 15,22,24,25,29,35 using VEGF, VEGFR2, Vasohibin, CD34, ALK1, ANG‐1, and ANG‐2 markers.…”

“…Extracellular matrix degradation, proliferation, survival, migration, and anastomoses are all components of this intricate, multistep process 41 . It is primarily mediated by inflammatory mediators like cytokines via the activation of endothelial cells 16 . Plethora of evidence implicates that angiogenesis (endothelial cell dysfunction or aberrant angiogenesis) and chronic inflammation are co‐dependent 15 .…”

“…Moreover, researchers made the use of various angiogenic (CD31, CD34, CD54, CD105, CD106, VEGF, VEGFR2), and anti‐angiogenic (Vasohibin) markers to identify vascularity in OLP tissues. Increased angiogenesis has since long been assessed and linked to its pathogenesis, chronicity, progression, clinical activity and malignant conversion 14–20 . Although, many investigators depict a non‐significant relationship between angiogenesis and OLP, others claim the importance of angiogenic modulators in it 20–25 .…”