Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:55:20.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantitation in Immunohistochemistry: a Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Russ Allison*
Affiliation:
University of Wales College of Medicine

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I have read with great interest the considered article by Dr, Barry Rittman (Microscopy Today#98-8, October, pp 8-9). In describing the difficulties of quantitation in immunohistochemistry, Dr. Rittman has gone to great lengths to give an authoritatively balanced view. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I raise a few issues which may remain unresolved.

Dr. Rittman provides a list of criteria to be considered before applying quantitative analysis to this method. I would place the question of relating color developed to the amount of substrate present higher than number 7 on the list. To the best of my knowledge, there is little evidence that immunocytochemistry is stoichiometric, i.e.,that there is a relationship between color developed and amount of substrate present, indeed many consider that it is not, which represents a serious drawback.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1999

References

Helander, K.G. 1983. Thickness variations within individual paraffin and glycol methacrylate sections. Microscopy, J.. 132: 223227.Google Scholar
Medawar, P.B. 1941, The rate of penetration of fixatives, Royal Microsc, J., Sgc. 61: 4657.Google Scholar
Allison, R,T, and Best, T.. 1998. p53, PCNA, Ki-61 expression in oral squamous cell carcinomas: the vagaries of fixation and microwave enhancement of immunocytochemistry. Oral Pathol, J.. Med. 27: 434-440.Google Scholar