Is my antibody‐staining specific? How to deal with pitfalls of immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry is a sensitive and versatile method widely used to investigate the cyto‐ and chemoarchitecture of the brain. It is based on the high affinity and selectivity of antibodies for a single epitope. However, it is now recognized that the specificity of antibodies needs to be tested in control experiments to avoid false‐positive results due to non‐specific binding to tissue components or recognition of epitopes shared by several molecules. This ‘Technical Spotlight’ discusses other pitfalls, which are often overlooked, although they can strongly influence the outcome of immunohistochemical experiments. It also recapitulates the minimal set of information that should be provided in scientific publications to allow proper evaluation and replication of immunohistochemical experiments. In particular, tissue fixation and processing can have a strong impact on antigenicity by producing conformational changes to the epitopes, limiting their accessibility (epitope masking) or generating high non‐specific background. These effects are illustrated for an immunoperoxidase staining experiment with three antibodies differing in susceptibility to fixation, using tissue from mice processed under identical conditions, except for slight variations in tissue fixation. In these examples, specific immunostaining can be abolished depending on fixation strength, or detected only after prolonged postfixation. As a consequence, antibody characterization in immunohistochemistry should include their susceptibility towards fixation and determination of the optimal conditions for their use.

[1]  Clifford B Saper,et al.  An open letter to our readers on the use of antibodies , 2005, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[2]  R. Malenka,et al.  A schizophrenia-related sensorimotor deficit links alpha 3-containing GABAA receptors to a dopamine hyperfunction. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Synapse‐specific localization of NMDA and GABAA receptor subunits revealed by antigen‐retrieval immunohistochemistry , 1998, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[4]  J. Walsh,et al.  Differential kinetics for immunoneutralization of circulating gastrin by gastrin monoclonal antibody and its Fab1 fragment in rats , 1994, Peptides.

[5]  J. Fritschy,et al.  GABAA‐receptor heterogeneity in the adult rat brain: Differential regional and cellular distribution of seven major subunits , 1995, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[6]  C. Schweizer,et al.  Alteration of GABAergic synapses and gephyrin clusters in the thalamic reticular nucleus of GABAA receptor α3 subunit‐null mice , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.

[7]  T. Freund,et al.  Perisomatic Inhibition , 2007, Neuron.

[8]  Marco Sassoè-Pognetto,et al.  Immunofluorescence in brain sections: simultaneous detection of presynaptic and postsynaptic proteins in identified neurons , 2006, Nature Protocols.

[9]  L. Acsády,et al.  Serotonergic control of the hippocampus via local inhibitory interneurons. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Zoltan Nusser,et al.  Specificity of Immunoreactions: The Importance of Testing Specificity in Each Method , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  K. Rhodes,et al.  Antibodies as Valuable Neuroscience Research Tools versus Reagents of Mass Distraction , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.