Transcriptional Differences between Canine Cutaneous Epitheliotropic Lymphoma and Immune-Mediated Dermatoses

• Published in: Genes
• Main Authors: Nadja Gerber, Magdalena A. T. Brunner, Vidhya Jagannathan, Tosso Leeb, Nora M. Gerhards, Monika M. Welle, Martina Dettwiler
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021
• Subjects: Canis lupus familiaris; dog; skin disease; cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; lupus erythematosus; cytotoxic dermatitis; Genetics; QH426-470; Canis lupus
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12020160; https://doaj.org/article/258dd74b5b964cdd837db4a5df94e281

Canine cutaneous epitheliotropic T-cell lymphoma (CETL) and immune-mediated T-cell predominant dermatoses (IMD) share several clinical and histopathological features, but differ substantially in prognosis. The discrimination of ambiguous cases may be challenging, as diagnostic tests are limited and may prove equivocal. This study aimed to investigate transcriptional differences between CETL and IMD, as a basis for further research on discriminating diagnostic biomarkers. We performed 100bp single-end sequencing on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded skin biopsies from dogs with CETL and IMD, respectively. DESeq2 was used for principal component analysis (PCA) and differential gene expression analysis. Genes with significantly different expression were analyzed for enriched pathways using two different tools. The expression of selected genes and their proteins was validated by RT-qPCR and immunohistochemistry. PCA demonstrated the distinct gene expression profiles of CETL and IMD. In total, 503 genes were upregulated, while 4986 were downregulated in CETL compared to IMD. RT-qPCR confirmed the sequencing results for 5/6 selected genes tested, while the protein expression detected by immunohistochemistry was not entirely consistent. Our study revealed transcriptional differences between canine CETL and IMD, with similarities to human cutaneous lymphoma. Differentially expressed genes are potential discriminatory markers, but require further validation on larger sample collections.