[Histonet] Re: zebrafish and IHC
Good point by Teri Johnson. I don't decalcify, thus my results may well be compromised by this procedureand, sure, the bone is disrupted. I am only interested in CNS/PNS so, I don't worry about bone/cartilage disruption. I fix in std 10% NBF. Imho, it is better to "overfix" rather than to worry about optimal short fixation, if you are using HIER. Utilitarily, Carl Carl Hobbs FIBMS Histology and Imaging Manager Wolfson CARD School of Biomedical Sciences Kings College London Guys Campus SE1 1UL Tel: 020 78486813 Fax: 020 78486816 020 78486813 ___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
[Histonet] Re: zebrafish and IHC
The differences might be due to decalcification and/or differences in fixation. I presume you are decalcifying the fish? Are you using EDTA or a formic acid decalcifier? Are they fixed in 10%NBF (or equivalent) for roughly the same amount of time as your human samples? Or are you using a different fixative altogether. The protocol might need to be re-optimized for your fish samples based on those issues. Teri Johnson, HT(ASCP)QIHC GNF Histology Lab Manager Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation 858-332-4752 ___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
[Histonet] Re: zebrafish and IHC
Should be no difference ( no tricks) Have a look here for some images: http://www.immunoportal.com/ Carl Hobbs FIBMS Histology and Imaging Manager Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases School of Biomedical Sciences King's College London Guys Campus London SE1 1UL Tel.020 7848 6810 fax 020 7848 6816 carl.ho...@kcl.ac.uk ___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
