4.2 Article

The Importance of Epitope Density in Selecting a Sensitive Positive IHC Control

期刊

JOURNAL OF HISTOCHEMISTRY & CYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 463-477

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1369/0022155417714208

关键词

IHControl; immunohistochemistry; peptide; positive control

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute [R44CA183203]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NIH) [UL1TR001064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical Immunohistochemistry (IHC) laboratories face unique challenges in performing accurate and reproducible immunostains. Among these challenges is the use of homemade controls derived from pathological discard samples. Such positive controls have an unknown number of analyte molecules per cell (epitope density). It is unclear how the lack of defined analyte concentrations affects performance of the control. To address this question, we prepared positive IHC controls (IHControls) for human epidermal growth factor receptor type II (HER-2), estrogen receptor (ER), or progesterone receptor (PR) with well-defined, homogeneous, and reproducible analyte concentrations. Using the IHControls, we examined the effect of analyte concentration on IHC control sensitivity. IHControls and conventional tissue controls were evaluated in a series of simulated primary antibody reagent degradation experiments. The data demonstrate that the ability of a positive IHC control to reveal reagent degradation depends on (1) the analyte concentration in the control and (2) where that concentration falls on the immunostain's analytic response curve. The most sensitive positive IHC controls have analyte concentrations within or close to the immunostain's concentration-dependent response range. Strongly staining positive controls having analyte concentrations on the analytic response curve plateau are less sensitive. These findings emphasize the importance of selecting positive IHC controls that are of intermediate (rather than strong) stain intensity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据