| Literature DB >> 8896801 |
C R Taylor1, S R Shi, C Chen, L Young, C Yang, R J Cote.
Abstract
We present a study comparing the most popular heating methods currently used for antigen retrieval (AR) immunostaining: the microwave oven, microwave with pressure cooker, autoclave, and steamer heating. A panel of 21 antibodies was tested on formalin fixed, paraffin embedded sections using these heating methods and Tris-HC1 buffer, pH 9.5, plus 5% urea as the AR solution. Three observers independently evaluated the intensity of AR immunostaining. All heating methods yielded good results for AR immunostaining. There were only minor differences among the heating methods for AR when the optimal concentration of primary antibody for normal immunostaining was used; however, background staining may occasionally be troublesome if antibodies are not retitrated and diluted further for use on tissues after AR. Significant differences were observed only after further dilution of the primary antibodies: the microwave pressure cooker, extended microwave heating (5 min x 4) and autoclave heating then showed a similar intensity of staining that was stronger than results obtained with the steamer (20 min) or regular microwave heating (5 min x 2). Extension of the steamer heating time, however, yielded equivalent results. This study indicates that different heating methods can yield similar intensities of AR immunostaining if the heating times are adjusted appropriately. It is noteworthy that, in general, the adjusted conditions for maximal retrieval differ from those most widely cited in the literature, or recommended by manufacturers. That several heating devices may provide similar results permits the use of different AR heating methods according to the equipment available. This study also is an early step in standardizing the AR immunostaining protocol by providing uniform conditions for "maximal retrieval" as a common end point for all laboratories.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 1996 PMID: 8896801 DOI: 10.3109/10520299609117171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotech Histochem ISSN: 1052-0295 Impact factor: 1.718