Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Grantham, Andrea L - (algranth)]

I process rodent tissue among other types of tissues and the times are similar 
to those that I use. In the place of Xylene I use Clear Rite 3. I find that 
this is a little more gentle and the tissue while still dry is not as bad and 
some things I don't even have to soak - like ovaries and some brains. But when 
I do soak I use a little glycerin in my water and let the faced blocks sit on 
the cold plate for 30 min-1 hr. Usually that is all it takes to get really 
pretty sections.
One other thing to think of is the temp of your waterbath. I keep mine around 
40 degrees C.
I let the slides dry completely before putting them in the oven before 
staining. If you have water under the sections it could produce the some of the 
spaces that you are seeing when the water expands in the oven.


Andrea Grantham, HT (ASCP)
Senior Research Specialist
University of Arizona
Cellular and Molecular Medicine
Histology Service Laboratory
P.O.Box 245044
Tucson, AZ 85724

algra...@email.arizona.edu
Tel: 520.626.4415 Fax: 520.626.2097

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

[Histonet] Used histology equipment

[Jay Lundgren]

Vendors!

 Please send me prices for a used: Leica microtome, a VIP 2000 tisssue
processor (prefer floor standing) and an embedding center (older Shandon
histocentre if I had my 'druthers).  Cash, delivered to 78201.

 Sincerely,
   Jay
A. Lundgren, M.S., HTL (ASCP)
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Jackie O'Connor]

We trim our tisues the day after necropsy, put the cassettes back in formalin 
for a few hours on the processor before it starts.  Our sections are durn 
perfect, if I do say so myself. One of the things I have found important for 
rodent tissues is to face the blocks and leave them on wet ice for about an 
hour before taking sections.  No chatter whatsoever.  We routinely cut at 5 
microns. 

Jackie O'



-Original Message-
From: Katherine Murphy 
To: Elizabeth Chlipala 
Cc: Jackie O'Connor ; rjbuesa ; histonet 

Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


Thanks for the suggestions. Just a note about the processing
rotocol...I just recently switched to the lower percentages of
lcohol recently to try to remedy the horrible dryness and
icrochatter I was getting using a 70%, 95% X 2, 100% x 3, xylene x 3
et up where shortening processing times was not solving the problem!
hanging the reagent set up solved the microchatter problem but now
his other separation artifact has appeared.
On 8/2/12, Elizabeth Chlipala  wrote:
 I agree with Jackie, I process from 20 to 30 minutes a station for mouse and
 rat tissue, but I process 45 minutes per station for brain and for skin I
 process one hour per station.  I find that once you gross the tissue samples
 in they need to be placed back into formalin to fix additionally and I never
 gross mouse or rat tissue and place in 50 to 70% alcohol that just causes
 problems, that’s been my experience.

 Liz

 Elizabeth A. Chlipala, BS, HTL(ASCP)QIHC
 Manager
 Premier Laboratory, LLC
 PO Box 18592
 Boulder, CO 80308-1592
 (303) 682-3949 office
 (303) 682-9060 fax
 (303) 881-0763 cell
 www.premierlab.com

 Ship to address:

 1567 Skyway Drive, Unit E
 Longmont, CO 80504

 -Original Message-
 From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Jackie
 O'Connor
 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:36 AM
 To: rjbu...@yahoo.com; katherine.o.mur...@gmail.com;
 histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


 I think the processing times are fine, sorry Rene'.   They are pretty
 similar to my processing schedules for both species.  It could be more of a
 fixation artefact as you suspect.  Tissues will begin to degrade waiting for
 formalin to get to them, and although formalin most tissues at about 3mm per
 hour - whole organs tend to slow penetration down somewhat. The low volume
 of fixative to tissue only compounds the problem.
 Jackie O'



 -Original Message-
 From: Rene J Buesa 
 To: Katherine Murphy ; histonet
 
 Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 12:03 pm
 Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


 Rat and mice tissues do not have too much fat and are susceptible to
 dryness
 fter processing specially when using xylene as "clearing" agent.
  also think that your times are too long.
 he best processing protocol for rodent tissues is a sequence of 2-propanol
 →
 ropanol+mineral oil → mineral oil → paraffin.
 t has produced great results in those labs that are using it.
 f you are interested I can send you under separate cover the procedure.
 ené J.

 ___
 rom: Katherine Murphy 
 o: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 ent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:07 AM
 ubject: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
 Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:
 I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
 I, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
 esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
 as described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
 hrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
 rocessing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
 eagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
  2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
 at and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
 ap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
 ut not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
 ars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
 cores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
 now what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
 orrected?
 ___
 istonet mailing list
 isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
 __
 istonet mailing list
 isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

 ___
 Histonet mailing list
 Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
 http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet


___
Histon

Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Katherine Murphy]

Thanks for the suggestions. Just a note about the processing
protocol...I just recently switched to the lower percentages of
alcohol recently to try to remedy the horrible dryness and
microchatter I was getting using a 70%, 95% X 2, 100% x 3, xylene x 3
set up where shortening processing times was not solving the problem!
Changing the reagent set up solved the microchatter problem but now
this other separation artifact has appeared.

On 8/2/12, Elizabeth Chlipala  wrote:
> I agree with Jackie, I process from 20 to 30 minutes a station for mouse and
> rat tissue, but I process 45 minutes per station for brain and for skin I
> process one hour per station.  I find that once you gross the tissue samples
> in they need to be placed back into formalin to fix additionally and I never
> gross mouse or rat tissue and place in 50 to 70% alcohol that just causes
> problems, that’s been my experience.
>
> Liz
>
> Elizabeth A. Chlipala, BS, HTL(ASCP)QIHC
> Manager
> Premier Laboratory, LLC
> PO Box 18592
> Boulder, CO 80308-1592
> (303) 682-3949 office
> (303) 682-9060 fax
> (303) 881-0763 cell
> www.premierlab.com
>
> Ship to address:
>
> 1567 Skyway Drive, Unit E
> Longmont, CO 80504
>
> -Original Message-
> From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Jackie
> O'Connor
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:36 AM
> To: rjbu...@yahoo.com; katherine.o.mur...@gmail.com;
> histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
>
>
> I think the processing times are fine, sorry Rene'.   They are pretty
> similar to my processing schedules for both species.  It could be more of a
> fixation artefact as you suspect.  Tissues will begin to degrade waiting for
> formalin to get to them, and although formalin most tissues at about 3mm per
> hour - whole organs tend to slow penetration down somewhat. The low volume
> of fixative to tissue only compounds the problem.
> Jackie O'
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene J Buesa 
> To: Katherine Murphy ; histonet
> 
> Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 12:03 pm
> Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
>
>
> Rat and mice tissues do not have too much fat and are susceptible to
> dryness
> fter processing specially when using xylene as "clearing" agent.
>  also think that your times are too long.
> he best processing protocol for rodent tissues is a sequence of 2-propanol
> →
> ropanol+mineral oil → mineral oil → paraffin.
> t has produced great results in those labs that are using it.
> f you are interested I can send you under separate cover the procedure.
> ené J.
>
> ___
> rom: Katherine Murphy 
> o: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> ent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:07 AM
> ubject: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
> Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:
> I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
> I, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
> esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
> as described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
> hrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
> rocessing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
> eagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
>  2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
> at and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
> ap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
> ut not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
> ars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
> cores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
> now what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
> orrected?
> ___
> istonet mailing list
> isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> __
> istonet mailing list
> isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
> ___
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

RE: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Elizabeth Chlipala]

I agree with Jackie, I process from 20 to 30 minutes a station for mouse and 
rat tissue, but I process 45 minutes per station for brain and for skin I 
process one hour per station.  I find that once you gross the tissue samples in 
they need to be placed back into formalin to fix additionally and I never gross 
mouse or rat tissue and place in 50 to 70% alcohol that just causes problems, 
that’s been my experience.

Liz

Elizabeth A. Chlipala, BS, HTL(ASCP)QIHC
Manager
Premier Laboratory, LLC
PO Box 18592
Boulder, CO 80308-1592
(303) 682-3949 office
(303) 682-9060 fax
(303) 881-0763 cell
www.premierlab.com

Ship to address:

1567 Skyway Drive, Unit E
Longmont, CO 80504

-Original Message-
From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu 
[mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Jackie O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:36 AM
To: rjbu...@yahoo.com; katherine.o.mur...@gmail.com; 
histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


I think the processing times are fine, sorry Rene'.   They are pretty similar 
to my processing schedules for both species.  It could be more of a fixation 
artefact as you suspect.  Tissues will begin to degrade waiting for formalin to 
get to them, and although formalin most tissues at about 3mm per hour - whole 
organs tend to slow penetration down somewhat. The low volume of fixative to 
tissue only compounds the problem.
Jackie O'



-Original Message-
From: Rene J Buesa 
To: Katherine Murphy ; histonet 

Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


Rat and mice tissues do not have too much fat and are susceptible to dryness
fter processing specially when using xylene as "clearing" agent.
 also think that your times are too long.
he best processing protocol for rodent tissues is a sequence of 2-propanol →
ropanol+mineral oil → mineral oil → paraffin.
t has produced great results in those labs that are using it.
f you are interested I can send you under separate cover the procedure.
ené J.

___
rom: Katherine Murphy 
o: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
ent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:07 AM
ubject: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:
I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
I, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
as described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
hrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
rocessing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
eagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
 2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
at and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
ap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
ut not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
ars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
cores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
now what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
orrected?
___
istonet mailing list
isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
__
istonet mailing list
isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Jackie O'Connor]

I think the processing times are fine, sorry Rene'.   They are pretty similar 
to my processing schedules for both species.  It could be more of a fixation 
artefact as you suspect.  Tissues will begin to degrade waiting for formalin to 
get to them, and although formalin most tissues at about 3mm per hour - whole 
organs tend to slow penetration down somewhat. The low volume of fixative to 
tissue only compounds the problem.  
Jackie O'



-Original Message-
From: Rene J Buesa 
To: Katherine Murphy ; histonet 

Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces


Rat and mice tissues do not have too much fat and are susceptible to dryness 
fter processing specially when using xylene as "clearing" agent.
 also think that your times are too long.
he best processing protocol for rodent tissues is a sequence of 2-propanol → 
ropanol+mineral oil → mineral oil → paraffin.
t has produced great results in those labs that are using it.
f you are interested I can send you under separate cover the procedure.
ené J.

___
rom: Katherine Murphy 
o: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu 
ent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:07 AM
ubject: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces
Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:
I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
I, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
as described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
hrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
rocessing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
eagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
 2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
at and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
ap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
ut not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
ars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
cores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
now what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
orrected?
___
istonet mailing list
isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
__
istonet mailing list
isto...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
ttp://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Rene J Buesa]

Rat and mice tissues do not have too much fat and are susceptible to dryness 
after processing specially when using xylene as "clearing" agent.
I also think that your times are too long.
The best processing protocol for rodent tissues is a sequence of 2-propanol → 
propanol+mineral oil → mineral oil → paraffin.
It has produced great results in those labs that are using it.
If you are interested I can send you under separate cover the procedure.
René J.



From: Katherine Murphy 
To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu 
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:07 AM
Subject: [Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:

I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
GI, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
(esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
was described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
shrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
Processing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
Reagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
x 2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
rat and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
tap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
but not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
jars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
scores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
know what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
corrected?

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

[Histonet] RE: Hemo-De

[Atoska Gentry]

Hello, has anyone use or are you currently using Hemo-De as the clearing agent 
in these stains: 1) Bielschowsky's Method for Axis Cylinders and Dendrites 
and/or 2) Sevier-Munger Method for Neural Tissues? Your prompt reply will be 
much appreciated.  Regards. ~ Atoska
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

RE: [Histonet] negative controls

[McMahon, Loralee A]

I am hoping that the vendors will recognize this when the make these 
agreements.  
Hopefully not doubling our prices!

Loralee McMahon, HTL (ASCP)
Immunohistochemistry Supervisor
Strong Memorial Hospital
Department of Surgical Pathology
(585) 275-7210

From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu 
[histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Dessoye, Michael J 
[mjdess...@commonwealthhealth.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Vanessa Perez; anita dudley; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] negative controls

You may be able to omit them, but in our case they are still a detection
that is part of our volume agreement.  I'm not sure if everyone else has
a similar agreement, but omitting the negative controls may affect your
ability to meet a volume commitment.

Michael J. Dessoye, M.S. | Histology Supervisor | Wilkes-Barre General
Hospital | An Affiliate of Commonwealth Health |
mjdess...@commonwealthhealth.net | 575 N. River Street | Wilkes Barre,
PA 18764 | Tel: 570-552-1432 | Fax: 570-552-1526


-Original Message-
From: Vanessa Perez [mailto:vpe...@pathreflab.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:35 AM
To: anita dudley; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] negative controls

Yes you can, the cap standards just came out Tuesday with the revised
part stating you do not have to run a negative reagent control using
polymer based detection.  Only if you are still using biotin based
detection kits do you need to run the neg. control


Vanessa Perez Garcia
Histology Supervisor
Pathology Reference Lab
210-892-3746
210-892-3732
vpe...@pathreflab.com

-Original Message-
From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of anita
dudley
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] negative controls


just wondering if we can start leaving the negative controls off of our
immuno stains now as long
as our procedure says we can stain without them?   we use ventanas
multimer detection systems.

thanks so much,
anita dudley
providence hospital
mobile,  alabama

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of Commonwealth Health.

Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed
by Websense Email Security software in conjunction with
virus detection software.



___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

[Histonet] Rodent processing and artifactual spaces

[Katherine Murphy]

Hello Histo Gurus, I have a question for you:

I process rat and mouse tissues (kidney, liver, lung, brain, pancreas,
GI, spleen) and have been seeing a separation artifact in the tissues
(esp. kidney, brain, and heart) on the slides. I believe this is what
was described as artifactual spaces between individual cells or cell
shrinkage, as described by Carson (1997) under Fixation and
Processing. The processing schedule that has produced this is: 50%
Reagent Alcohol (RA), 70% RA, 80% RA, 95% RA x 2, 100% RA x 2, xylene
x 2, and Paraplast Plus @ 60°C with vacuum, at 40 min per station for
rat and 25 min per station for mouse. Preceding processing is a 20’
tap water rinse. Tissues have been in formalin for weeks in most cases
but not always collected ideally (low formalin to tissue ratio, small
jars used for large tissues, tissues submitted whole without slices or
scores, etc)--we don't have much control over this part. Does anyone
know what causes the separation artifact is and how it can be
corrected?

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

RE: [Histonet] negative controls

[Dessoye, Michael J]

You may be able to omit them, but in our case they are still a detection
that is part of our volume agreement.  I'm not sure if everyone else has
a similar agreement, but omitting the negative controls may affect your
ability to meet a volume commitment. 

Michael J. Dessoye, M.S. | Histology Supervisor | Wilkes-Barre General
Hospital | An Affiliate of Commonwealth Health |
mjdess...@commonwealthhealth.net | 575 N. River Street | Wilkes Barre,
PA 18764 | Tel: 570-552-1432 | Fax: 570-552-1526 


-Original Message-
From: Vanessa Perez [mailto:vpe...@pathreflab.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:35 AM
To: anita dudley; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] negative controls

Yes you can, the cap standards just came out Tuesday with the revised
part stating you do not have to run a negative reagent control using
polymer based detection.  Only if you are still using biotin based
detection kits do you need to run the neg. control


Vanessa Perez Garcia
Histology Supervisor
Pathology Reference Lab
210-892-3746
210-892-3732
vpe...@pathreflab.com

-Original Message-
From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of anita
dudley
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] negative controls


just wondering if we can start leaving the negative controls off of our
immuno stains now as long
as our procedure says we can stain without them?   we use ventanas
multimer detection systems.
 
thanks so much,
anita dudley
providence hospital
mobile,  alabama
 
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of Commonwealth Health.

Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed
by Websense Email Security software in conjunction with 
virus detection software.



___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

[Histonet] RE: Hemo-De

[Atoska Gentry]

Hello is  anyone using  Hemo=De as the clearing agent in the following stains: 
Bielschowsky's Method for Axis Cylinders & Dendrites and Sevier-Munger Method 
for Neural Tissues? Regards. Atoska
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

VB: [Histonet] symphony another question

[Pries Nina]

So far (we've only had it for a couple of months) the Dako Coverstainer is 
giving us much less trouble than Symphony did, there are no reagents that need 
to be replaced during the day (except for filling up coverslips), and we can 
work in the same room with it (very quiet and not smelly!). But there is indeed 
more maintanence involved, with bottles places very close to the floor. :(
Nina Pries
Histotech
Clinical Pathology Lund
Sweden

Från: Patricia Webster [mailto:pwebs...@swmail.sw.org]
Skickat: den 2 augusti 2012 15:30
Till: Pries Nina
Ämne: Re: [Histonet] symphony another question

I think I misread the first time - so the Dako is ok?

Trish Webster, HT(ASCP)
Lead Anatomic Path Tech - Histology
Scott & White Memorial Hospital
254-724-3695
MS-01-266
pwebs...@swmail.sw.org


>>> Pries Nina  8/2/2012 6:37 AM >>>


We had Symphony on trial for about a year and found that it didn't suit our 
Lean organized lab. The machine is built to handle a large amount of trays at 
once (the tower and the different staining modules have great capacity) but for 
each tray you load the processing time increases with whatever time the baking 
is set to (we set it to 12 minutes because of problems with "flying" needle 
biopsies) since there is only ONE oven. We set the max number of trays to load 
at once to 4 but always ended up with a huge batch late in the day that got 
stained in the evening and had to be taken out and sorted in the morning >> 
uneven work load.

Symphony is great in that it hardly requires any weekly maintanence at all and 
is ergonomically good, but on the other hand it continously wants to be fed 
boxes, large amounts of 99% ethanol and those stinky Clear bottles that are 
devilish (!) to open. Lots of waste packaging, and we at least had no way to 
separate waste for destruction (everything went into the sewage.) Huge 
footprint, nosiy, limonen smell (when changing bottles) and requires destilled 
water - it can't be placed just anywhere in the lab like the stainer we have 
now (Dako Coverstainer). Trays are loaded from two sides so they require 
constant turning by the histotech to be able to read slide labels, and after a 
while the springs holding the slides get broken off. Also, we had to specially 
adapt trays to hold supermega slides but the staining on those tended to be 
uneven. We also had continous problems with the mounting module - misaligned 
coverslips, bubbles, moisture. Little things that get annoying when handling 
several hundred slides each day! Too bad for a piece of hardware that promised 
such ease of use...


Nina Pries
Histotech
Clinical Pathology Lund
Sweden

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Gudrun Lang [mailto:gu.l...@gmx.at]
Skickat: den 1 augusti 2012 09:31
Till: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Ämne: [Histonet] symphony another question

Hi!

A question for Symphony-users. Do you enjoy working with the Symphony? Is it
really a change to the better in comparison to other combined
staining-coverslipping devices?

I don't ask for quality or patient security - just for user concerns.

Did it ever happen, that a run-error turned the system down (like it
sometimes does with our Ultra)? What are the consequences?



Just curious.

Gudrun



___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

RE: [Histonet] negative controls

[Vanessa Perez]

Yes you can, the cap standards just came out Tuesday with the revised part 
stating you do not have to run a negative reagent control using polymer based 
detection.  Only if you are still using biotin based detection kits do you need 
to run the neg. control


Vanessa Perez Garcia
Histology Supervisor
Pathology Reference Lab
210-892-3746
210-892-3732
vpe...@pathreflab.com

-Original Message-
From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu 
[mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of anita dudley
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] negative controls


just wondering if we can start leaving the negative controls off of our immuno 
stains now as long
as our procedure says we can stain without them?   we use ventanas multimer 
detection systems.
 
thanks so much,
anita dudley
providence hospital
mobile,  alabama
  
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] symphony another question

[Pries Nina]

We had Symphony on trial for about a year and found that it didn't suit our 
Lean organized lab. The machine is built to handle a large amount of trays at 
once (the tower and the different staining modules have great capacity) but for 
each tray you load the processing time increases with whatever time the baking 
is set to (we set it to 12 minutes because of problems with "flying" needle 
biopsies) since there is only ONE oven. We set the max number of trays to load 
at once to 4 but always ended up with a huge batch late in the day that got 
stained in the evening and had to be taken out and sorted in the morning >> 
uneven work load.

Symphony is great in that it hardly requires any weekly maintanence at all and 
is ergonomically good, but on the other hand it continously wants to be fed 
boxes, large amounts of 99% ethanol and those stinky Clear bottles that are 
devilish (!) to open. Lots of waste packaging, and we at least had no way to 
separate waste for destruction (everything went into the sewage.) Huge 
footprint, nosiy, limonen smell (when changing bottles) and requires destilled 
water - it can't be placed just anywhere in the lab like the stainer we have 
now (Dako Coverstainer). Trays are loaded from two sides so they require 
constant turning by the histotech to be able to read slide labels, and after a 
while the springs holding the slides get broken off. Also, we had to specially 
adapt trays to hold supermega slides but the staining on those tended to be 
uneven. We also had continous problems with the mounting module - misaligned 
coverslips, bubbles, moisture. Little things that get annoying when handling 
several hundred slides each day! Too bad for a piece of hardware that promised 
such ease of use...


Nina Pries
Histotech
Clinical Pathology Lund
Sweden

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Gudrun Lang [mailto:gu.l...@gmx.at] 
Skickat: den 1 augusti 2012 09:31
Till: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Ämne: [Histonet] symphony another question

Hi!

A question for Symphony-users. Do you enjoy working with the Symphony? Is it
really a change to the better in comparison to other combined
staining-coverslipping devices?

I don't ask for quality or patient security - just for user concerns.

Did it ever happen, that a run-error turned the system down (like it
sometimes does with our Ultra)? What are the consequences?

 

Just curious.

Gudrun



___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet