Effect of Fixation and Epitope Retrieval on BrdU Indices in Mammary CarcinomasJohn N. McGinleya, Katrina K. Knotta, and Henry J. Thompsonaa AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver, Colorado Correspondence to: John N. McGinley, AMC Cancer Research Center, 1600 Pierce St., Denver, CO 80214. E-mail: mcginleyj@amc.org
Studies in which 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) is used to quantify rates of cell proliferation are conducted prospectively. Therefore, the opportunity exists to select conditions that optimize detection of the BrdU epitope. The objective of this study was to quantify the extent to which the BrdU epitope was masked by formalin vs methacarn fixation in the assessment of cell proliferation. Mammary carcinomas from animals pulse-labeled with BrdU were trisected. A portion was frozen and the remaining two portions were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin or methacarn for 24 hr, processed, embedded in paraffin, and sections stained for incorporated BrdU using a peroxidase immunohistochemical staining technique. Antigen retrieval techniques also were applied to formalin-fixed sections. Fixation in methacarn gave the highest labeling index (16.4%), which was comparable to that observed in unfixed frozen sections (17.5%). Formalin fixation alone dramatically suppressed the labeling index (0.3%), which was only partially recovered using various antigen retrieval techniques (2.18.1%). Methacarn fixation is recommended for prospective studies in which BrdU detection is planned because of the quantitative recovery of epitope and the simplicity of the approach. (J Histochem Cytochem 48:355362, 2000) Key Words: immunohistochemistry, bromodeoxyuridine, antigen retrieval, enzyme digestion, formalin, methacarn, fixation, image analysis, microwave
BrdU is a halogenated nucleotide analogue of thymidine that is incorporated into DNA during the S-phase of the cell cycle. Pulse-labeling of DNA with BrdU and subsequent immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of labeled nuclei is increasingly being used to study the rates of cell proliferation in normal and malignant cells in vivo and in vitro. In fact, a key word search of the Medline database for the past 5 years revealed 2123 citations containing the term "BrdU" as a text word cross-referenced to cell proliferation in comparison to 430 citations containing the term "tritiated thymidine" similarly cross-referenced. The BrdU method has the advantage, compared to the autoradiographic detection of [3H]-thymidine incorporated into DNA, of speed and convenience of analysis, and it obviates the need to use radioisotopes. The BrdU method is similar in specificity and sensitivity to the autoradiographic detection of tritiated thymidine labeled nuclei ( As with all IHC methods, a persistent concern is choosing the correct fixative and duration of fixation that will provide minimal loss of antigenicity with maximal preservation of tissue morphology. This issue is particularly relevant to the detection of the BrdU epitope because studies in which BrdU is used are conducted prospectively. Therefore, the opportunity exists to select conditions that optimize epitope detection.
Many factors have been reported to influence the immunoreactivity of the BrdU epitope; prominent among these is the method of tissue fixation (
Alternatives to formalin fixation are available. Alcohol-based coagulant fixatives do not crosslink proteins and therefore tend to reduce antigenic masking ( Despite the fact that most studies in which BrdU is used are prospective and therefore can be designed to maximize its detection by IHC, it appears that many investigators do not take advantage of methacarn fixation but rather rely on formalin fixation with variable approaches to unmasking the BrdU epitope. One reason for this may be the lack of information in the literature providing a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of the differences that can result from different approaches to tissue fixation and pretreatment. With this in mind, the experiments we report here were designed to examine quantitatively the degree to which formalin fixation with and without pretreatment involving enzyme digestion (pepsin vs protease XXIV) or HIER vs methacarn fixation influenced the detection of incorporated BrdU in rat mammary adenocarcinomas. Methacarn was chosen as the comparison alcohol-based fixative for the reasons delineated above. To eliminate field selection bias, we implemented a random sampling method in conjunction with computer assisted image analysis (CAIA) to identify labeled cells. The use of this approach is discussed.
Twenty-day-old female SpragueDawley rats were obtained from Taconic Farms (Germantown, NY). Rats were injected IP with 50 mg/kg 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea (MNU) at 21 days of age as previously described (
Specimen Selection
Enzymatic Digestion
HIER
Frozen Sections
Immunohistochemistry
Computer-assisted Image Analysis
Hematoxylin was used as the conterstain instead of methyl green. Quantitatively, methyl green is considered an optimal counterstain to DAB chromogen for image analysis. Qualitatively, methyl green provides poor contrast of tissue elements in light microscopy. We chose to use a dilute solution of Harris hematoxylin that gave good contrast of nuclei without staining cytoplasmic or extraneous tissue elements and was comparable in absorbance to that of methyl green. The nuclear area estimated using Harris hematoxylin vs methyl green differed by only 2% (unpublished data). To validate the automated counting method relative to the manual counting procedure that has routinely been used to assess labeling index, methacarn sections were evaluated both by the manual counting method and by CAIA to determine how close the two methods actually are. The "sequence record" software option on the CAS 200 system was used to capture all image fields counted by CAIA from each methacarn-fixed tumor sample. Hard copies of each image field were made and the nuclei were counted manually to determine labeling index.
Random Sampling
Field Count
Statistics
Qualitative Assessment of Differences in Staining in Paraffin-embedded Tissues
Quantitative Assessment of Differences in Staining
Comparison of Fixation and Pretreatment: Paraffin-embedded Tissue. Paraffin-embedded tissues sections were used to assess the effects of tissue fixative and pretreatment on the BrdU labeling index, staining intensity, and staining heterogeneity using the criteria outlined in Table 2. The results are shown in Table 4. Fixation with formalin alone resulted in little detectable staining; the average labeling index for the eight tumors evaluated was 0.3%. This quantitative analysis is consistent with the qualitative observations shown in Fig 1. In contrast, qualitatively, pepsin digestion appeared to have little effect on BrdU immunoreactivity. However, the data in Table 4 show an appreciable increase in the labeling index (2.1%), and in comparison to fixation in formalin without pretreatment the increase was statistically significant (p<0.01). Pepsin digestion also caused a numerical increase in staining intensity (p=0.058) and a reduction in heterogeneity of staining (p=0.055) in comparison to fixation in formalin alone. Further improvements in BrdU immunoreactivity, as reflected by an increase in the labeling index, were observed with protease XXIV digestion (5.5%) or HIER (8.1%), and these increases were accompanied by increases in staining intensity (22.7% and 35.2%, respectively) and decreases in staining heterogeneity (72.5% and 68.3%, respectively). Relative to increasing the labeling index in formalin-fixed tissue, the rank order of effectiveness was HIER>protease XXIV>pepsin>formalin alone. Statistically, HIER was superior to formalin alone or pepsin in increasing labeling index (p<0.01) but was not different from protease XXIV (p=0.32).
Methacarn-fixed tissue had the highest labeling index and staining intensity and the lowest staining heterogeneity. These differences were statistically significant in comparison to all other fixation and pretreatments that were examined (p<0.01).
Immunohistochemical Staining of Frozen Tissue Sections
The series of experiments reported here was initiated on the premise that, all other things being equal, simple techniques are preferable to complicated ones. We reasoned that, if methacarn fixation could be used to achieve better results in a prospective study using BrdU than a more complicated approach such as formalin fixation and antigen retrival, even if an optimal approach could be developed to reach the same goal, the simpler approach would be preferred. As discussed below, our results support the use of methacarn fixation because of the quantitative recovery of epitope and the simplicity of the approach. The effect of fixative and pretreatments on the IHC detection of BrdU epitopes was evaluated in rat mammary carcinomas. Tissue fixed in formalin alone exhibited a labeling index of less than 1%, whereas the same tissue fixed in a coagulant fixative, methacarn, had a labeling index of 16.4%. To our knowledge, the magnitude of the difference between the labeling index determined on formalin- vs methacarn-fixed tissue has not been previously quantified. Equally informative were experiments showing that three procedures commonly used to regain BrdU immunoreactivity in formalin-fixed tissue varied in their effectiveness and gave labeling indices 50.687.2% lower than the labeling index determined in methacarn-fixed tissue. These findings have several implications. First, an increasing number of laboratories are using pulse-labeling techniques with BrdU to estimate rates of cell proliferation. Clearly, rate estimates can be significantly underestimated depending on choice of fixative and/or pretreatment. The potential magnitude of this effect has not been previously reported. Second, given that studies in which BrdU is used are conducted prospectively, there is not a requirement to use formalin as a fixative. The data reported in Table 4 show the advantages of using methacarn relative to measuring the labeling index, and this is the most convenient and economical of the approaches evaluated. Moreover, methacarn provides excellent preservation of tissue architecture. Finally, the results show that, if formalin must be used as the fixative, HIER treatment gives results numerically better than enzyme digestion, and staining intensity is greater and staining heterogeneity reduced. Both factors improve the sensitivity of the assay. HIER has the dual advantage, in comparison to enzyme digestion, of speed and economy, although vigilance in adherence to the HIER protocol must be exercised to ensure reproducibility of results and to prevent protocol drift. We recommend that serious consideration be given to methacarn fixation for the reasons outlined above. This recommendation is reinforced by the data presented in Table 5 showing that labeling indices determined using methacarn-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue are essentially identical to those values obtained on unfixed frozen sections of the same tissue.
Many issues must be considered in deciding whether to limit cell counting to high-labeling fields of cells or to use a random field selection approach so as to obtain an unbiased estimate of the overall rate of cell proliferation. Some of the issues to be considered are reviewed in Other than providing a quantitative assessment of the potential impact of fixative and pretreatments on estimates of the BrdU labeling index, the data in Table 4 show the advantage of methacarn fixation in improving conditions that increase the accuracy of CAIA as applied to the quantification of BrdU signal. These factors can also affect the ability to count labeled cells manually. Specifically, the staining intensity and heterogeneity data shown in Table 4 indicate that fixation with methacarn gives the greatest signal-to-noise ratio, i.e., stained cells are darker and there is less variation in staining intensity among the randomly selected fields that were assessed. Both features make it easier to identify and count labeled cells. The practical implications are easily recognized on examination of the photomicrographs presented in Fig 1. In summary, fixation of tissue with a coagulant fixative such as methacarn offers significant advantages in the assessment of the rate of cell proliferation if BrdU is used to label cells going through the S-phase of the cell cycle. Fixation with methacarn gave the least biased estimate of the rate of cell proliferation. If a crosslinking fixative such as formalin must be used, then HIER gives better recovery of BrdU immunoreactivity than digestion with either pepsin or protease XXIV. For investigators seeking to apply CAIA to the analysis of rates of cell proliferation, methacarn fixation substantially improves staining intensity and decreases staining heterogeneity. It is also simple and convenient. Using an easily implemented random approach to field selection, CAIA values for the labeling index were comparable to the values obtained using the routine manual counting method.
Supported by PHS grants NCI-CN-45029-72 and NCI-CN-75011-72. We thank Ms Pam Wolfe (AMC Biostatistician) for her contributions to this manuscript. Received for publication September 23, 1999; accepted October 28, 1999.
Bacus JW, Grace LJ (1987) Optical microscope system for standardized cell measurements and analyses. Appl Opt 26:3280-3293
Bak PM, Panos RJ (1997) Protease antigen recovery decreases the specificity of bromodeoxyuridine detection in formalin-fixed tissue. J Histochem Cytochem 45:1165-1170 BurfordMason AP, Mackay AJ, Cumins M, Dardick I (1994) Detection of proliferating cell nuclear antigen in paraffin-embeded specimens is dependent on preembedding tissue handling and fixation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:1007-1013[Medline] Carson FL (1990) Histotechnology. Chicago, ASCP Press Conover WJ (1971) Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 2nd ed New York, John Wiley & Sons Dover R, Patel K (1994) Improved methodology for detecting bromodeoxyuridine in cultured cells and tissue sections by immunocytochemistry. Histochemistry 102:383-387[Medline] Gown AM, Wever N, Battifora H (1993) Microwave-based antigenic unmasking. Appl Immunohistochem 14:256-266 Hayashi Y, Koike M, Matsutani M, Hoshino T (1988) Effects of fixation and enzymatic digestion on immunohistochemical demonstration of bromodeoxyuridine in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Histochem Cytochem 36:511-514[Abstract] James JD, HauerJensen M (1999) Effects of fixative and fixation time for quantitative computerized image analysis of immunohistochemical staining. J Histotechnol 22:109-111 Lan HY, NikolicPaterson DJ, Mu W, Atkins RC (1995) Local macrophage proliferation in the progression of glomerular and tubulointerstitial injury in rat anti-gbm glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int 49:753-760 Mitchell D, Ibrahim S, Guterson BA (1985) Improved immunohistochemical localization of tissue antigens using modified methacarn fixation. J Histochem Cytochem 33:491-495[Abstract] Puchtler H, Meloan SN (1985) On the chemistry of formaldehyde fixation and its effects on immunohistochemical reactions. Histochemistry 82:201-204[Medline] Puchtler H, Waldrop F, Meloan SN, Terry MS, Conner HM (1970) Methacarn (methyl-carnoy) fixation practical and theoretical considerations. Histochemie 21:97-116[Medline] Sapino A, Macri L, Gugliota P, Bussolati G (1990) Immunocytochemical identification of proliferating cell types in mouse mammary gland. J Histochem Cytochem 38:1541-1547[Abstract] Schutte B, Reynders MJ, Bosman FT, Blijham GH (1987) Effect of tissue fixation on anti-bromodeoxyuridine immunohistochemistry. J Histochem Cytochem 35:1343-1345[Abstract] Shetye J, Scheynius A, Mellstedt HT, Biberfeld P (1996) Retrieval of leukocyte antigens in paraffin-embedded rat tissues. J Histochem Cytochem 44:767-776[Abstract] Shi S, Key ME, Kalra KL (1991) Antigen retrieval in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues: an enhancement method for immunohistochemical staining based on microwave oven heating of tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem 39:741-748[Abstract] Siitonen SM, Isola JJ, Rantala IS, Helin HJ (1993) Intratumor variation in cell proliferation in breast carcinoma as determined by antiproliferating cell nuclear antigen monoclonal antibody and automated image analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 99:226-231[Medline] Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. New York, Freeman Sternberger LA, Sternberger NH (1986) The unlabeled antibody method: comparison of peroxidase-antiperoxidase with avidin-biotin complex by a new method of quantification. J Histochem Cytochem 34:599-605[Abstract]
Thompson HJ, McGinley JN, Rothhammer K, Singh M (1995) Rapid induction of mammary intraductal proliferations, ductal carcinoma in situ and carcinomas by the injection of sexually immature female rats with 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea. Carcinogenesis 16:2407-2411 Thornton JG, Wells M, Hume WJ (1988) Flash labeling of S-phase cells in short-term organ culture of normal and pathological human endometrium using bromodeoxyuridine and tritiated thymidine. J Pathol 154:321-328[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||