The fibroblast surface markers FAP, anti-fibroblast, and FSP are expressed by cells of epithelial origin and may be altered during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition

Abstract The identification of fibroblasts and cancer‐associated fibroblasts from human cancer tissue using surface markers is difficult, especially because the markers used currently are usually not expressed solely by fibroblasts, and the identification of fibroblast‐specific surface molecules is still under investigation. It was aimed to compare three commercially available antibodies in the detection of different surface epitopes of fibroblasts (anti‐fibroblast, fibroblast activation protein α, and fibroblast surface protein). The specificity of their expression, employing fibroblast cell lines and tumor‐derived fibroblasts from breast and prostate tissues was investigated. Both the established fibroblast cell line HFF‐1 and ex vivo primary fibroblasts isolated from breast and prostate cancer tissues expressed the tested surface markers to different degrees. Surprisingly, those markers were expressed also by permanent cell lines of epithelial origin, both benign and cancer‐derived (breast‐cell lines MCF 10A, HMLE and prostate‐cell lines BPH‐1, DU 145, and PC‐3). The expression of fibroblast activation protein α increased on the surface of previously described models of epithelial cells undergoing epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition in response to treatment with TGF‐β1. To prove the co‐expression of the fibroblast markers on cells of epithelial origin, we used freshly dissociated human prostate and breast cancer tissues. The results confirmed the co‐expression of anti‐fibroblast and fibroblast surface protein on CD31/CD45‐negative/EpCAM‐positive epithelial cells. In summary, our data support the findings that the tested fibroblast markers are not fibroblast specific and may be expressed also by cells of epithelial origin (e.g., cells undergoing EMT). Therefore, the expression of these markers should be interpreted with caution, and the combination of several epitopes for both positive (anti‐fibroblast or fibroblast activation protein α) and negative (EpCAM) identification of fibroblasts from breast and prostate tumor tissues is advised. © 2017 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry