ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2017
Epitope Preservation Methods for Tissue Microarrays: Longitudinal Prospective Study.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibody-Based Multiplex Image Analysis: Standard Analytical Workflows and Artificial Intelligence Tools for Pathologists.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2025Review
- Effects of Slide Storage on Detection of Molecular Markers by IHC and FISH in Endometrial Cancer Tissues From a Clinical Trial: An NRG Oncology/GOG Pilot Study.Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM · 2022Article
- An Alternate Diagnostic Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Intraepithelial Fallopian Tube Lesions.International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists · 2020Observational
- Incidence of androgen receptor and androgen receptor variant 7 coexpression in prostate cancer.The Prostate · 2019Article
- DNA methylation and histone post-translational modification stability in post-mortem brain tissue.Clinical epigenetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to test recent guidelines for preserving immunoreactivity of precut slides, to quantify loss of immunoreactivity, and to determine potential for preservation by altering storage conditions.
methodsPrecut slides from tissue microarrays were stored under one of several conditions: exposed to ambient air at room temperature, 4°C, or -20°C or in a vacuum-sealed container at room temperature, -20°C, -80°C, or with paraffin coating. At multiple intervals over 1 year, slides were stained with antibodies against p53, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1, Ki-67, synaptophysin, and androgen receptor and evaluated.
resultsCompared with time 0, the overall median percentage immunoreactivity was 66% at 6 months and 51% at 1 year. During the experiment, this was as low as 55% for precut slides stored in paraffin coating and up to 87% for those stored at -20°C. Vacuum sealing was an effective preservative for some antibody targets and detrimental for others. Storage at -80°C did not have added value.
conclusionsFor precut slides, there is a time, storage condition, and antibody-dependent loss of immunoreactivity that could compromise analysis of prognostic, predictive, and diagnostic markers. Our findings support previous recommendations and suggest that the best storage conditions are at -20°C, without paraffin coating or vacuum sealing.
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.