Cargando…

Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model

In our study we systematically compared the alternative fixatives acidified formal alcohol (AFA), PAXgene®, HOPE®, and combinations of AFA or formalin with ultrasound treatment to standard (buffered) formalin fixation. We examined general morphology and detectability of protein structures by immunoh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nietner, Thorben, Jarutat, Tiantom, Mertens, Alfred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1248-5
_version_ 1782242183699496960
author Nietner, Thorben
Jarutat, Tiantom
Mertens, Alfred
author_facet Nietner, Thorben
Jarutat, Tiantom
Mertens, Alfred
author_sort Nietner, Thorben
collection PubMed
description In our study we systematically compared the alternative fixatives acidified formal alcohol (AFA), PAXgene®, HOPE®, and combinations of AFA or formalin with ultrasound treatment to standard (buffered) formalin fixation. We examined general morphology and detectability of protein structures by immunohistochemistry of the membrane receptors epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), and phosphorylated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (phospho-HER2). In order to allow for stringent comparability of different fixation techniques, we used matched mouse xenograft tumor samples from three different human cancer cell lines (colon, ovarian, and non-small cell lung cancer), either fixed conventionally with formalin or an alternative fixative. Tissue morphology after fixation with AFA and PAXgene® was comparable to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET) morphology. Ultrasound fixations resulted in slightly inferior morphology and HOPE® fixation preserved morphology only poorly compared to FFPET in this system. None of the tested alternative fixatives enabled immunohistochemical detectability of all three targets in the same manner as FFPET. Pronounced staining was possible for EGFR and IGF-1R with all alternative fixatives but HOPE®, and phospho-HER2 staining was only noteworthy with formalin-ultrasound-fixed tissue. Therefore, the use of alternative fixatives comes with the need for careful validation of obtained IHC results individually for each target. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00428-012-1248-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3432218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34322182012-09-07 Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model Nietner, Thorben Jarutat, Tiantom Mertens, Alfred Virchows Arch Original Article In our study we systematically compared the alternative fixatives acidified formal alcohol (AFA), PAXgene®, HOPE®, and combinations of AFA or formalin with ultrasound treatment to standard (buffered) formalin fixation. We examined general morphology and detectability of protein structures by immunohistochemistry of the membrane receptors epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), and phosphorylated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (phospho-HER2). In order to allow for stringent comparability of different fixation techniques, we used matched mouse xenograft tumor samples from three different human cancer cell lines (colon, ovarian, and non-small cell lung cancer), either fixed conventionally with formalin or an alternative fixative. Tissue morphology after fixation with AFA and PAXgene® was comparable to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET) morphology. Ultrasound fixations resulted in slightly inferior morphology and HOPE® fixation preserved morphology only poorly compared to FFPET in this system. None of the tested alternative fixatives enabled immunohistochemical detectability of all three targets in the same manner as FFPET. Pronounced staining was possible for EGFR and IGF-1R with all alternative fixatives but HOPE®, and phospho-HER2 staining was only noteworthy with formalin-ultrasound-fixed tissue. Therefore, the use of alternative fixatives comes with the need for careful validation of obtained IHC results individually for each target. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00428-012-1248-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer-Verlag 2012-07-20 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3432218/ /pubmed/22814649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1248-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nietner, Thorben
Jarutat, Tiantom
Mertens, Alfred
Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title_full Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title_fullStr Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title_full_unstemmed Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title_short Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
title_sort systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1248-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nietnerthorben systematiccomparisonoftissuefixationwithalternativefixativestoconventionaltissuefixationwithbufferedformalininaxenograftbasedmodel
AT jarutattiantom systematiccomparisonoftissuefixationwithalternativefixativestoconventionaltissuefixationwithbufferedformalininaxenograftbasedmodel
AT mertensalfred systematiccomparisonoftissuefixationwithalternativefixativestoconventionaltissuefixationwithbufferedformalininaxenograftbasedmodel