Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

MET and HGF expressions.

Representative sarcomas showing range and pattern of immunohistochemical staining for MET (A-H) and HGF (I-P). (A, B, I, J) staining intensity score = 0, (C, D, K, L) score = 1+, (E, F, G, M, N, O,) score = 2+, (H, P) score = 3+. (A, C, E, N) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas, (B, D, F, G, K, M) angiosarcomas, (H) control cell line, (I, L, O) leiomyosarcomas, (J) dedifferentiated liposarcoma, (P) control tissue breast cancer.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Immunohistochemical expression scores of MET and HGF.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

FISH results of MET positive cases.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization for MET.

Representative sarcomas showing different categories for MET gene copy number variations (see text for explanation). MET gene is labeled in green, centromere 7 in orange. (A) MET negative clear cell sarcoma, (B) MET negative angiosarcoma, (C) low level copy number gain in a clear cell sarcoma, (D) intermediate level copy number gain in an undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, (E, F) high level amplification in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Correlation between MET amplification status and MET protein expression.

More »

Table 3 Expand