4.2 Article

Controls for Immunohistochemistry: The Histochemical Society's Standards of Practice for Validation of Immunohistochemical Assays

Journal

JOURNAL OF HISTOCHEMISTRY & CYTOCHEMISTRY
Volume 62, Issue 10, Pages 693-697

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1369/0022155414545224

Keywords

Immunohistochemistry; immunocytochemistry; antibodies; controls; validation; assay; standards

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research
  2. Research and Development Service of the Department of Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
  3. Cellular and Molecular Imaging Core of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Washington (NIH) [P30DK017047]
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs Senior Research Career Scientist award
  5. NIH [GM108470]
  6. NSF [NSF-1002410, NSF-1137725]
  7. Puerto Rico Science Technology and Research Trust [2013-000034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunohistochemistry is widely used in biomedical research to localize specific epitopes of molecules in cells and tissues. The validity of interpretations based on immunohistochemistry requires appropriate positive and negative controls that are often not reported in publications. This omission may lead to incorrect interpretations and irreproducible results in the literature and contribute to wasted time, effort, and resources as well as erosion of confidence in scientific investigation by the general public, legislative bodies and funding agencies. The present article summarizes essential controls required for validation of immunohistochemical findings and represents a standard of practice for the use of immunohistochemistry in research and diagnostic investigations. Adherence to the guidelines described in the present article can be cited by authors as support for the validity of interpretations of the immunohistochemistry reported in their publications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available