No, is NOT regressive, Gill 3 is a progressive hematoxylin and it differs
from Gill 1 by having a higher concentration of hematoxylin (3X more) hence
the Gill 3.
Staining is usually done in approx 1 1/2 minutes, then you rinse with
approx 10 dips or so 4% acetic acid only to get rid of ionic interaction of
hematoxylin to the glass slide and a bit of background staining in the
tissue. The acetic acid is not a differentiation solution as is 1% HCl in
70% alcohol (as used with Harris Hematoxylin). I am not a fan of Harris
anymore since it can no longer be made with mercuric oxide (boo hoo!)
Harris tends to overstain, Gill will not do this.
We switched to Gill or other progressive hematoxylins years ago to get away
from having to differentiate the Harris.
Simply, with Gill 3 you just stain, rinse with acetic, and blue in Scotts
tap water substitute. Check out Richard Allan Gill hematoxylins, they sell
everything you need and the stain was superb.
Whoever wrote the Sigma tech sheet didn't know their hematoxylins IF they
called Gill regressive!! Gary Gill must be gagging over this one.
Gayle Callis (senior too!)
At 12:23 PM 5/2/2007, you wrote:
>Excuse the question if it is patently obvious - perhaps I'm having a
>Senior Moment. I occasionally do Congo Red (Sigma's kit) and it calls
>for Gill 3 Hematoxylin. According to the description of Gill 3, it is a
>regressive hematoxylin - as is Harris'. Should I not have Gill 3 at
>that moment, what would be the result (pos/neg) of using Harris'? A
>follow-on to this question: is there a vendor for Bouin's that sells
>less than a liter? Thanks in advance.
>Sally Breeden, HT(ASCP)
>NM Dept. of Agriculture
>Veterinary Diagnostic Services
>PO Box 700
>Albuquerque, NM 87106
>Histonet mailing list
Research Histopathology Supervisor
Veterinary Molecular Biology
Montana State University - Bozeman
PO Box 173610
Bozeman MT 59717-3610
Histonet mailing list