4.4 Article

Multiplex quantitative imaging of human myocardial infarction by mass spectrometry-immunohistochemistry

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL MEDICINE
卷 132, 期 6, 页码 1675-1684

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00414-018-1813-9

关键词

Mass spectrometry-immunohistochemistry; Multiplex tissue imaging; Biomarker; Myocardial ischemia; Forensic pathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simultaneous assessment of a panel of protein markers is becoming essential in order to enhance biomarker research and improve diagnostics. Specifically, postmortem diagnostics of early myocardial ischemia in sudden cardiac death cases could benefit from a multiplex marker assessment in the same tissue section. Current analytical antibody-based techniques (immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence) limit multiplex analysis usually to not more than three antibodies. In this study, mass spectrometry-immunohistochemistry (MS-IHC) was performed by combining laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) with rare-metal-isotope-tagged antibodies as a technique for multiplex analysis of human postmortem myocardial tissue samples. Tissue sections with myocardial infarction were simultaneously analyzed for seven primary, rare-metal-isotope-tagged antibodies (troponin T, myoglobin, fibronectin, C5b-9, unphosphorylated connexin 43, VEGF-B, and JunB). Comparison between the MS-IHC approach and chromogenic IHC showed similar patterns in ionic and optical images. In addition, absolute quantification was performed by MS-IHC, providing a proportional relationship between the signal intensity and the local marker concentration in tissue sections. These data demonstrated that LA-ICP-MS combined with rare-metal-isotope-tagged antibodies is an efficient strategy for simultaneous testing of multiple markers and allows not only visualization of molecules within the tissue but also quantification of the signal. Such imaging approach has a great potential in both diagnostics and pathology-related research.

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

4.4
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