ArticleCureus2026
Standardization and Validation of Antigen Retrieval Methods for Immunofluorescence on Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Biopsies.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) performed on fresh-frozen tissue is regarded as the reference standard for detecting immune deposits in renal and skin biopsies. However, limitations, such as inadequate frozen tissue, technical constraints, and the inability to perform retrospective analysis, necessitate alternative approaches. Immunofluorescence on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, combined with effective antigen retrieval methods, has emerged as a potential substitute. This study aimed to standardize and validate different antigen retrieval techniques for immunofluorescence on FFPE tissue and to assess their diagnostic performance in comparison with frozen section immunofluorescence. Materials and methods A total of 100 biopsies, comprising 50 native renal biopsies for glomerulonephritis and 50 skin biopsies for immunobullous disorders, were included. The corresponding frozen section immunofluorescence served as the reference standard. FFPE sections were subjected to antigen retrieval using proteinase-K, pronase, trypsin, and dual microwave methods. Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugated antibodies against IgA, IgG, IgM, C3, kappa, and lambda were applied. The staining intensity was assessed using a semi-quantitative scale ranging from 0 to 3+. Accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of each FFPE-based method were calculated in comparison with frozen section immunofluorescence. Results Among the antigen retrieval techniques evaluated, proteinase-K demonstrated the highest sensitivity across immunoglobulins and complement components in both renal and skin biopsies. Repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a statistically significant difference in sensitivity among methods (p = 0.0280), while specificity did not differ significantly, with all methods showing near-perfect specificity. Conclusion Immunofluorescence on FFPE tissue using proteinase-K antigen retrieval provides high sensitivity and excellent specificity, closely approximating frozen section results. This method represents a reliable and practical alternative, particularly when frozen tissue is unavailable, and serves as an effective salvage technique in routine diagnostic pathology.
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.