4.6 Article

Acid-free glyoxal as a substitute of formalin for structural and molecular preservation in tissue samples

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182965

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)
  2. AIRC, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro [MFAG13310]
  3. 5xMille Ministero Salute - FPRC onlus AIRC 5xMille Molecular Clinical Oncology Extension program [9970]
  4. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (PRIN) [2015HAJH8E]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tissue fixation in phosphate buffered formalin (PBF) remains the standard procedure in histopathology, since it results in an optimal structural, antigenic and molecular preservation that justifies the pivotal role presently played by diagnoses on PBF-fixed tissues in precision medicine. However, toxicity of formaldehyde causes an environmental concern and may demand substitution of this reagent. Having observed that the reported drawbacks of commercially available glyoxal substitutes of PBF (Prefer, Glyo-fix, Histo-Fix, Histo-CHOICE, and Safe-Fix II) are likely related to their acidity, we have devised a neutral fixative, obtained by removing acids from the dialdehyde glyoxal with an ion-exchange resin. The resulting glyoxal acid-free (GAF) fixative has been tested in a cohort of 30 specimens including colon (N = 25) and stomach (N = 5) cancers. Our results show that GAF fixation produces a tissue and cellular preservation similar to that produced by PBF. Comparable immuno-histochemical and molecular (DNA and RNA) analytical data were obtained. We observed a significant enrichment of longer DNA fragment size in GAF-fixed compared to PBF-fixed samples. Adoption of GAF as a non-toxic histological fixative of choice would require a process of validation, but the present data suggest that it represents a reliable candidate.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available