[Histonet] Question of combining immunofluorescence and more conventional cytologic stains

[Amos Brooks]

Hi,
     Have you tried doing the conventional stain first, then the fluorescent
after. As long as the epitope survives the initial staining, it should be
fairly easy to label the cells with a fluorescent tag.

Amos

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM,
<histonet-request <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:33:29 +0800
> From: Min-Han Tan <minhan.science <@t> gmail.com>
> Subject: [Histonet] Question of combining immunofluorescence and more
>        conventional cytologic stains
> To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Message-ID:
>        <CAKdVuDQkJ2Q5icE5xxSeh6YQTbq_r+LuykxNo+hHzYBHjAcsRQ <@t> mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for the trouble. I am working on fresh human cancer cells on
> slides here in Singapore. I am trying to visualize the slides concurrently
> using both immunofluorescence and a more conventional nuclear stain used in
> pathology laboratories.
>
> I have tried Diffquik and Giemsa, but both seem to quench the fluorescence
> signal. I have tried a GFP-expressing cell line, and the same quenching
> seems to occur as well.
>
> I was wondering if anyone has ever needed to do similar work, and if so,
> what sort of solutions (bad pun) were adopted?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Min-Han
>