Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:18:01.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Insights About Brain Tumors Gained Through Immunohistochemistry and in Situ Hybridization of Nuclear and Phenotypic Markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

P.E. McKeever*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-0602
Get access

Extract

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has provided major insights about the classification of brain tumors by identifying cellular markers of phenotype, and about tumor growth potential with nuclear markers of proliferation. Newer in situ hybridization shows promise in tumor classification and prognostication.

Fig. 1 shows the sensitive and reliable avidin-biotin conjugate (ABC) method of localizing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). GFAP is the most specific marker of gliomas, tumors of brain cells, available today. The ABC method can be used to find any antigen for which a primary antibody is available. A molecular bridge then links this primary antibody bound to tissue with a label that can be seen, a substrate of the horseradish peroxidase (HRP) enzyme like diaminobenzidine (DAB) that produces a brown, insoluble reaction product at the site of the antigen. IHC for GFAP has revealed that brain tumors previously thought to be sarcomas are actually malignant gliomas (Fig. 2).

Type
Neoplasia: Abnormal Cell Growth Or Death/Apoptosis? Insights From Microscopy
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.McKeever, P.E. and Balentine, J.D., Histochemistry in Pathologic Diagnosis, New York: Marcel Dekker (1987) 920.Google Scholar
2.Burger, P.C., Scheithauer, B.W., Tumors of the CNS, Washington DC: AFIP (1994) 2, 53.Google Scholar
3.McKeever, P.E. and Blaivas, M., Diagnostic Surgical Pathology, New York: Raven (1994) 409.Google Scholar