[Histonet] Re: Histonet Digest, Vol 110, Issue 25

Amos Brooks amosbrooks <@t> gmail.com
Sun Jan 20 08:13:23 CST 2013

Hi Jim,
     If I were to guess (which is essentially what one needs to do in the
absence of a procedure) I would say that since the thick sections work but
thin do not it is likely being over differentiated. This is why most
procedures do not specify a specific time in the Ferric chloride. It
totally depends on the tissue. Dense elastic tissue takes longer to
differentiate than fine delicate fibers, and thick sections take longer
than thin to differentiate. So if the thick and thin sections are
differentiated for the same time the thin will end up over differentiated
and possibly totally de-stained if left in long enough to get good
differentiation of the thick sections. This is one of the reasons I love
this stain. I call it job security since automating subtle differences is
near impossible and it takes some knowledge of histology and the staining
chemistry to do this properly.

Best of luck,
Amos Brooks

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:00 PM,
<histonet-request <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>wrote:

> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:51:20 +0000
> From: "Herrick, James L. (Jim)" <Herrick.James <@t> mayo.edu>
> Subject: [Histonet] SRBS/van Gieson
> To: "histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
>         <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 669007BC9D903242957AF72E783646A6035E6E <@t> MSGPEXCHA09A.mfad.mfroot.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Happy Friday Everybody,
> We are trying to develop a protocol for an SRBS/van Gieson's stain on MMA
> embedded tissue. The sections are 5um in thickness and deplasticized. Our
> protocol seems to work ok on thick sections but not on thin, deplasticized
> sections. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Hope you all
> have a great weekend!!
> Thanks,
> Jim

More information about the Histonet mailing list