These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of 5 different labeled polymer immunohistochemical detection systems.
    Author: Skaland I, Nordhus M, Gudlaugsson E, Klos J, Kjellevold KH, Janssen EA, Baak JP.
    Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol; 2010 Jan; 18(1):90-6. PubMed ID: 19661787.
    Abstract:
    Immunohistochemical staining is important for diagnosis and therapeutic decision making but the results may vary when different detection systems are used. To analyze this, 5 different labeled polymer immunohistochemical detection systems, REAL EnVision, EnVision Flex, EnVision Flex+ (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark), NovoLink (Novocastra Laboratories Ltd, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK) and UltraVision ONE (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Fremont, CA) were tested using 12 different, widely used mouse and rabbit primary antibodies, detecting nuclear, cytoplasmic, and membrane antigens. Serial sections of multitissue blocks containing 4% formaldehyde fixed paraffin embedded material were selected for their weak, moderate, and strong staining for each antibody. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated by subjective scoring and digital image analysis. At optimal primary antibody dilution, digital image analysis showed that EnVision Flex+ was the most sensitive system (P < 0.005), with means of 8.3, 13.4, 20.2, and 41.8 gray scale values stronger staining than REAL EnVision, EnVision Flex, NovoLink, and UltraVision ONE, respectively. NovoLink was the second most sensitive system for mouse antibodies, but showed low sensitivity for rabbit antibodies. Due to low sensitivity, 2 cases with UltraVision ONE and 1 case with NovoLink stained false negatively. None of the detection systems showed any distinct false positivity, but UltraVision ONE and NovoLink consistently showed weak background staining both in negative controls and at optimal primary antibody dilution. We conclude that there are significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, costs, and total assay time in the immunohistochemical detection systems currently in use.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]