[Histonet] Research and Clinical Labs

[shive003 <@t> umn.edu]

It's my understanding that infectious organisms are rendered inactive when 
fixed in an aldehyde-based fixative (except for abnormal prion proteins). 
So, the only concern that one would need to address is if frozens are 
desired. Due safety precautions must be taken, of course, in the initial 
retrieval/excision of tissue from animals in the necropsy suite when 
zoonotic infections are suspected.

I don't see a problem with using the same equipment. Processing schedules 
(times) may have to be adjusted for animal tissue, however, so dedicated 
processing runs may be necessary for them.

Jan Shivers
U of MN Veterinary Diagnostic Lab


On Mar 15 2011, Jay Lundgren wrote:

>Amos,
>
>     I don't know the answer, but this is a really interesting question.  I
>have worked both in the Research and Clinical Histology Laboratory and I
>have never seen the two mixed, which begs the question, "Why?".
>    Maybe it's just because, if you go through the trouble and expense of
>starting a CAP accredited lab, processing patient specimens is so
>remunerative for the owner of the Pathology lab, why would they want to do
>anything else?
>    Conversely, if you are a university or corporate owner of a Research
 Laboratory, your PI would get PO'ed if some Pathology Resident adding 
blocks
>to the tissue processor after hours, and not restarting it, messes us an
>experiment that had taken a year and ten thousand man-hours of meticulous
>lab time to get to the tissue block stage.
      Maybe there is a pertinent regulation. In my opinion, it sounds like 
a
>really good way to spread zoonotic infection.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jay A. Lundgren M.S., HTL (ASCP)
>_______________________________________________
>Histonet mailing list
>Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
>http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>