|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français|
We read with great interest the contribution by Dr. Petersson et al regarding the report, entitled “Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with liposarcomatous dedifferentiation - report of a unique case” .The authors presented a good case report and implemented a comprehensive discussion; but the article contains an error in Table 1 that may misguide the readers. In the footnotes of Table 1, the authors have erroneously stated that Cam 5.2 targets CK,8,18.
Becton Dickinson Biosciences (Franklin Lakes, NJ) manufactured and globally marketed the anti-cytokeratin CAM5.2, which is derived from the clone CAM5.2. This clone recognizes human cytokeratin intermediate filament proteins at 48 and 52 kDa, which are identified as cytokeratins 7 and 8, respectively. Occasionally, anti-cytokeratin CAM5.2 has been mistakenly believed to recognize cytokeratins 8 and 18, since previous results by Makin et al are attributed to breakdown products of cytokeratin 8, giving smaller molecular weight fractions on im-munoblots . However, Becton Dickinson Biosciences has revised the data sheet for CAM5.2 (B.D.) since 1997. It is now well known that CAM5.2 is specific for cytokeratin 8 and to a lesser extent for the closely related cytokeratin 7, but shows no reactivity with 18 [3, 4].
We believe this information is of great help to clarify the critical point that monoclonal antibody CAM5.2 recognized mainly CK8, but not CK18.