RE: [Histonet] XYL Substitutes vs IHC

From:"Favara, Cynthia \(NIH/NIAID\) [E]"

Question before comment, is it only the counterstain that is weak?

I will be interested to hear what other opinions are. I have used a
substitute for more years than I want to think about and the results are
more than adequate. I do however think that overall stains are not as
crisp and bright as with previously used more harmful chemicals. Could
be true or could be just fond memories of when I was far less busy,
stressed and a hell of a lot younger!  

Cheers to all,

Cynthia Favara
903 South 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840

The information in this e-mail and any of its attachments is
confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be
used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have
received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it
from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any
statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf
of the NIAID by one of its representatives

-----Original Message-----
From: Breeden, Sara [] 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: [Histonet] XYL Substitutes vs IHC

Has anyone had difficulty with BVD/CWD IHC results when the
tissues/slides are processed through a xylene substitute (specifically
in this case Sub-X)?  I'm getting weak counterstaining and I'm wondering
if this could be the source of the problems; I've pretty much ruled out
mechanical or astrological causes.  Any help would be greatly
appreciated.  I only use the substitute because of air quality issues
within the lab although I still prefer xylene all around!  Thanks!


Sally Breeden, HT(ASCP)

NM Dept. of Agriculture

Veterinary Diagnostic Services

PO Box 700

Albuquerque, NM  87108


Histonet mailing list

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>