Premium
Comparison of two polymer‐based immunohistochemical detection systems: ENVISION+™ and ImmPRESS™
Author(s) -
RAMOSVARA JOSÉ A.,
MILLER MARGARET A.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of microscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.569
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1365-2818
pISSN - 0022-2720
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2006.01679.x
Subject(s) - antigen , immunohistochemistry , avidin , antigen retrieval , staining , calretinin , microbiology and biotechnology , biotin , pathology , chemistry , biology , biotinylation , medicine , immunology , biochemistry
Summary The non‐specific background reaction produced in avidin–biotin‐based immunohistochemistry, particularly after harsh antigen retrieval procedures, has promoted the use of non‐avidin–biotin systems, yet there are few reports comparing the performance of non‐avidin–biotin, polymer‐based methods. In this study we compare two of these methods, ENVISION+™ and ImmPRESS™, in animal tissues. We examined the immunoreactivity of 18 antigens in formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tissues. Antigens were located in the cytoplasmic membrane (CD11d, CD18 and CD79a), cytoplasm (calretinin, COX‐1, COX‐2, Glut‐1, HepPar 1, KIT, Melan A, tryptase and uroplakin III) or nucleus (MUM‐1, PGP 9.5 and thyroid transcription factor 1). We also evaluated three infectious agents ( Aspergillus , calicivirus and West Nile virus). The staining with ENVISION+™ or ImmPRESS™ was performed simultaneously for each antigen. The intensity of the reaction and background staining were scored. ImmPRESS™ yielded similar or higher reaction intensity than ENVISION+™ in 16/18 antigens. ImmPRESS™ produced abundant background with the other two antigens (calretinin and COX‐2), which hindered interpretation of the specific reaction. The cost of ImmPRESS™ was 25% lower than for ENVISION+™. Based on these results, ImmPRESS™ is a good polymer‐based detection system for routine immunohistochemistry.