Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2011
Comparison of formalin-free tissue fixatives: a proteomic study testing their application for routine pathology and research.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kothmaier Hannelore, Rohrer Daniela, Stacher Elvira, Quehenberger Franz, Becker Karl-Friedrich, Popper Helmut H
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue is the routine processing method for diagnostics practiced in pathology departments worldwide.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential value of non-cross-linking, formalin-free tissue fixation for diagnostics in pathology and proteomic investigations.
DESIGN: We tested 3 commercially available, formalin-free tissue fixatives-FineFIX, RCL2, and HOPE-in lung cancer specimens from 10 patients. The fixatives were evaluated for their effects on tissue morphology, protein recovery, and immunoreactivity for a selected panel of proteins differently expressed in lung cancer, using immunohistochemistry and Western blotting.
RESULTS: Tumor-cell analysis with hematoxylin-eosin worked equally well for all tested fixatives when compared with the standard formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded procedure. Movat pentachrome stains showed comparable results for the different matrices and cellular proteins analyzed. The RCL2 (P = .01) and HOPE fixatives (P = .03) improved protein recovery when compared with formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded or frozen tissues. Our data clearly show that the fixatives evaluated influenced immunoreactivity to matched, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded lung cancer tissue. In particular, membrane-bound proteins, such as epidermal growth factor receptor EGFR, can be detected more efficiently by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting.
CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that formalin-free fixatives have the potential in routine pathology and research to replace formalin in histomorphology and protein preservation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential value of non-cross-linking, formalin-free tissue fixation for diagnostics in pathology and proteomic investigations.
DESIGN: We tested 3 commercially available, formalin-free tissue fixatives-FineFIX, RCL2, and HOPE-in lung cancer specimens from 10 patients. The fixatives were evaluated for their effects on tissue morphology, protein recovery, and immunoreactivity for a selected panel of proteins differently expressed in lung cancer, using immunohistochemistry and Western blotting.
RESULTS: Tumor-cell analysis with hematoxylin-eosin worked equally well for all tested fixatives when compared with the standard formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded procedure. Movat pentachrome stains showed comparable results for the different matrices and cellular proteins analyzed. The RCL2 (P = .01) and HOPE fixatives (P = .03) improved protein recovery when compared with formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded or frozen tissues. Our data clearly show that the fixatives evaluated influenced immunoreactivity to matched, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded lung cancer tissue. In particular, membrane-bound proteins, such as epidermal growth factor receptor EGFR, can be detected more efficiently by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting.
CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that formalin-free fixatives have the potential in routine pathology and research to replace formalin in histomorphology and protein preservation.