Talk:Immunohistochemistry

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Remember glia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

basics
Ok it decribe the procces but what is measured? seen? and what is its goal?--Scubafish 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Immunohistochemistry is a technique used by life scientists and sometimes pathologists to identify and localize substances of interest (e.g. infectious agents, tissue components) in light microscopical specimens. This is achieved by applying antibodies that are specific for the substance and that will exclusively bind to that substance and to nothing else. These antibodies as such are not visible, but by using 'labels' such as a dye, or a fluorescent chemical group, an enzyme or a colloidal metal (mostly gold) particle, these antibodies can be traced in the light microscope. Life scientists use the technique to explore where certain molecules occur in microscopical specimens so they may gain a better understanding of the funcion and location of these compounds. Pathologists occasionally use the technique as a means to identify diseased tissue, which helps in making decisions about medical treatment. The technique is also used in electron microscopy when a far more precise localization needs to be achieved. Because electron microscopy is more focused on the cellular and subcellular level than on tissue, the technique is called immunocytochemistry. Colloidal gold particles are used as labels.--222.152.190.188 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed_Merge_with_Immunohistochemical staining
The article are almost exactly the same. Need to be merged, both articles would benefit.--DO11.10 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree I didn't notice that immunohistochemical staining existed as a page. It is redundant and not as thorough as immunohistochemistry. Merge ASAP Dr Aaron 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge from Immunocytochemistry
From a technical perspective, the two procedures are virtually identical except for sample preparation. Permeabilization is also more critical in ICC vs. IHC, but by and large, the two only differ in minor details. At present, the immunocytochemistry article needs a lot of work and I believe merging would benefit both articles in reducing repetition. Immunocytochemistry should take the form of a section in the Immunohistochemistry article. This section could highlight some of the key differences between the two. 142.103.207.10 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points - support merge of ICC into IHC. -- MarcoTolo 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several good points raised here, however, I would caution that in spite of the similarities between the two procedures, they work with different types of cells and different mediums by which the cells are observed. As a result, they are going to be used in different types of experiments and often yield different types of results - particularly because of the emphasis on in vivo detection with IHC and in vitro with ICC. Rolling ICC into IHC will serve to de-emphasize the role of ICC in the modern scientific community, where ICC images are becoming more prevalent and better regarded as the techniques see more use. However, I agree that both of the techniques could, and perhaps should, be presented together. I would recommend that the two article's content be merged on a newly created immuno staining page that both of the other terms redirect to. - Dante Marx 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just realized that an immunostaining page already exists and links to IHC as well as several other techniques. As such, I suggest that ICC be linked to in that page as well and this article be considered a stub until someone chooses to expand it. What is the benefit of putting them together when a summary page already exists? - Dante Marx 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Dante, there should be at least some discussion on ICC's emphasis on in vitro vs. ICH's emphasis on in vivo detection. Perhaps an article called Immunostaining could be used as the broader topic and include sections on IHC and ICC since the underlying concept of protein detection is the same, but are used very differently between the two. What do you think? AkashAD (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm just realized that there is already an Immunostaining article. It links to IHC but has no mention of ICC... My opinion is to keep ICC and make sure it is lised in the Immunostaining article AkashAD (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you should merge ICC - it is essentially the same thing (cells vs tissues) and in practical terms the two are often used interchangeably. Dr Aaron (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a merge, primarily for functional reasons: someone who comes across ICC of IHC in a paper should not be suckered into reading about the one they don't need to know about (I come to this from the position, contrary to Aaron's, that while the two are methodologically the same their uses are quite different — there's a world of difference between what you can look at inside a cell and what you can look at on cell surfaces or in the extracell. matrix). It's certainly true that we don't want people's efforts split between two copies of the same material… to that end I've added a line sending people to the IHC methods section – if anyone's tempted to write more about methods, this'll encourage them to do it over there. Or maybe the details of IHC should be moved to immunostaining, leaving two stubs which could be merged? — eitch 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the merge. Immunocytochemistry is more closely related to other practices such as flow cytometry. This article has enough room for expansion of scope that adding extraneous elements is a bad idea, in my opinion.Novangelis (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first suggested the merge, the immunocytochemistry article was in pretty rough shape. Everything in the article at the time was either wrong or duplicated in some form in the immunohistochemistry article. Seeing as that it's been greatly improved, I'm now in favour of keeping both articles, especially in light of the many valid points raised in this discussion. Many of the points raised here regarding the differences between ICC and IHC should be incorporated into the ICC article. I have somewhat less personal experience with some of the distinctions suggested, so if the people who mentioned them could put it in themselves, that would be great. Some concrete examples would be nice too. There is already an immunostaining article and how that should be developed in the context of the immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry articles should be further discussed. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion is already well along, I've taken steps to bring all those interested in this most recent question to this page: there are now notes on the talk:immunostaining and talk:immunocytochemistry pages that will bring people over here before they start redundant discussions. — eitch 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Immunotherapy
I tagged one sentence for implying IHC can be used to "diagnose and treat cancer." Also, I feel as though the Immunotherapy section seems out of place and should be removed. Any comments? AkashAD (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the immunotherapy section has nothing to do with IHC. It should be removed. Dr Aaron (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Give me a little time, and I'll track down some good references on the use of immunohistochemistry in directing therapy.  The first use was estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity for treatment with tamoxifen.  Then Her-2/neu for Herceptin came.  There are some other now -- c-kit for Gleevec, and others.  I can have the section together in a couple of days, tops.  As tamoxifen and Gleevec are not monoclonal antibodies I will change the section title as well.   Novangelis (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IHC and ICC confusion
From the section Direct and indirect IHC: "There are two strategies used for the immmunohistochemical detection of antigens in tissue, the direct method and the indirect method. In both cases, the tissue is treated to rupture the membranes, usually by using a kind of detergent such as Triton X-100."

This quote highlights the confusion some people have between immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry. Permeabilization is more important in ICC because the samples are whole cells. In IHC, the sample is a tissue section, which has been "permeabilized" by having a microtome blade go through it. Detergents are used in IHC to reduce surface tension, not for permeabilization. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Immunohistochemical profile could be mentioned
Many articles mention "Immunohistochemical profile"s, and that term now redirects here but there is no description here. What is an IHC profile, eg. is it a list of some set of cell surface antigens with +/- or quantitative values for each ? ( Rosehip neuron mentions "immunohistochemical profile (GAD1+CCK+, CNR1–SST–CALB2–PVALB–)" ) Are there any standards or are they different for each application or disease ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)