Rob,

We use the antibody to look at gross numbers of macrophages in bacterial
infected gastric tissue versus non-infected controls.  So we haven't really
looked at the individual cell morphology.  The 'infected' tissue macrophages
themselves do appear larger and more 'macrophage' like, but this tends to
result in more difficulties in cell counting, we just count relative stained
area of tissue to compensate.

The cells themselves stain variably.  Some are beautiful, others have a patchy
staining with the stain localised to one side of the nucleus.

We have also tried several other antibodies which are supposed to stain at
various stages of activation:

25F9, 27E10 and RM3/1 from Dianova Germany.

They do stain a specific subsets of the CD163 positive cells, but I have a
problem with non-specific and background staining.  Don't suppose anyone else
has any experience with these antibodies?

Phil

Philip Bergin
Göteborg Universitet
Göteborg, Sweden

Robert Geske wrote:

> Phil,
>
> in your experience with the antibody have you seen any correlation between
> immunoreactive cells and macrophage cell morphology (ruffeled cytoplasmic
> membrane borders, increase vacuolation, nuclear changes) after routine
> staining techniques ?
>
> regards,
> rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Bergin
> To: Jenny Molde; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Sent: 10/1/01 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Macrophages
>
> We use the Dako clone Ber-MAC3 anti human CD163 which seems to be
> working quite
> well for identifying tissue resident macrophages.  Its supposed to be
> good for
> differentiating between non-activated and activated monocytes.
>
> Philip Bergin
> Göteborg Universitet
> Göteborg, Sweden
>
>