ArticleMedicine2017
Quantitative Analysis of Immunohistochemistry in Melanoma Tumors.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Immunohistochemistry of Mouse Eye Sections Using Davidson's Fixative and Melanin Bleaching.Bio-protocol · 2025Article
- Probing Wnt pathway and functional signal in equine melanocytic neoplasms through quantitative proteomics and immunohistochemistry.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Equine Melanocytic Tumors: A Narrative Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Comparative G-Protein-Coupled Estrogen Receptor (GPER) Systems in Diabetic and Cancer Conditions: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- High expression of survivin predicts poor prognosis in cervical squamous cell carcinoma treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin.Medicine · 2019Observational
- Cytomorphological Spectrum of Malignant Melanoma: A 3-Year Study in a Tertiary Care Centre in India.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of positive staining is often qualitative and subjective. This is particularly troublesome in pigmented melanoma lesions, because melanin is difficult to distinguish from the brown stain resulting from immunohistochemistry (IHC) using horse radish peroxidase developed with 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine (HRP-DAB). We sought to identify and quantify positive staining, particularly in melanoma lesions. We visualized G-protein coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) expression developed with HRP-DAB and counterstained with Azure B (stains melanin) in melanoma tissue sections (n = 3). Matched sections (n = 3), along with 22 unmatched sections, were stained only with Azure B as a control. Breast tissue (n = 1) was used as a positive HRP-DAB control. Images of the stained tissues were generated using a Nuance Spectral Imaging Camera. Analysis of the images was performed using the Nuance Spectral Imaging software and SlideBook. Data was analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). We showed that a pigmented melanoma tissue doubly stained with anti-GPER HRP-DAB and Azure B can be unmixed using spectra derived from a matched, Azure B-only section, and an anti-GPER HRP-DAB control. We unmixed each of the melanoma lesions using each of the Azure B spectra, evaluated the mean intensity of positive staining, and examined the distribution of the mean intensities (P = .73; Kruskal-Wallis). These results suggest that this method does not require a matched Azure B-only stained control tissue for every melanoma lesion, allowing precious tissues to be conserved for other studies. Importantly, this quantification method reduces the subjectivity of protein expression analysis, and provides a valuable tool for accurate evaluation, particularly for pigmented tissues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.