Guide for collecting and reporting metadata on protocol variables and parameters from slide-based histotechnology assays to enhance reproducibility

References

• Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533(7604):452–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman LP, Gibson MC, Bradbury ARM, et al. The need for improved education and training in research antibody usage and validation practices. Biotechniques. 2016;61(1):16–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman LP, Inglese J. The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research. Cancer Res. 2014;74(15):4024–4029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, et al. Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS medicine. BMJ. 2018;360:k400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasilevsky NA, Brush MH, Paddock H, et al. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;1:e148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallach OD, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(11):e2006930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal SA, Wallach JD, Khoury MJ, et al. Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(1):e1002333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman LP, Venugopalan G, Wisman R. Reproducibility 2020: progress and priorities. F1000Research. 2017;6:604.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prager EM, Chambers KE, Plotkin JL, et al. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain Behav. 2019;9(1):e01141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penney DP. A brief history of the biological stain commission: its founders, its mission and the first 75 years. Biotech Histochem. 2000;75(4):154–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wick MR. Diagnostic histochemistry: a historical perspective. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2018;35(6):354–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wick MR. The hematoxylin and eosin stain in anatomic pathology—An often-neglected focus of quality assurance in the laboratory. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2019;36(5):303–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riva MA, Manzoni M, Isimbaldi G, et al. Histochemistry: historical development and current use in pathology. Biotech Histochem. 2014;89(2):81–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romano LA, Pedrosa VF. Re-claiming H&E: back to the future. Postgrad Med J. 2020;96(1131):58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier-Ruge WA, Bruder E. Current concepts of enzyme histochemistry in modern pathology. Pathobiology. 2008;75(4):233–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker M. Antibody anarchy: a call to order. Nature. 2015;527(7579):545–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker M. Reproducibility crisis: blame it on the antibodies. Nature. 2015;521(7552):274–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordeaux J, Welsh AW, Agarwal S, et al. Antibody validation. Biotechniques. 2010;48(3):197–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury A, Pluckthun A. Reproducibility: standardize antibodies used in research. Nature. 2015;518(7537):27–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons AH, Creech HJ, Jones RN, et al. The demonstration of pneumococcal antigen in tissues by the use of fluorescent antibody. J Immunol. 1942;45(3):159–170.
   Google Scholar
• Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egelhofer TA, Minoda A, Klugman S, et al. An assessment of histone-modification antibody quality. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18(1):91–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couchman JR. Commercial antibodies: the good, bad, and really ugly. J Histochem Cytochem. 2009;57(1):7–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saper CB. A guide to the perplexed on the specificity of antibodies. J Histochem Cytochem. 2009;57(1):1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimm D, Uhlen M, LaBaer ARM, et al. Antibody validation standards, policies and practices. In: GBSI workshop report, Asilomar conference, CA, USA. Washington (DC): Global Biological Standards Institute; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Roncador G, Engel P, Maestre L, et al. The European antibody network’s practical guide to finding and validating suitable antibodies for research. mAbs. 2016;8(1):27–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhlen M, Bandrowski A, Carr S, et al. A proposal for validation of antibodies. Nat Methods. 2016;13(10):823–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattoretti G. Standardization and reproducibility in diagnostic immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol. 1994;25(10):1107–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Leary TJ. Standardization in immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2001;9(1):3–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sfanos KS, Yegnasubramanian S, Nelson WG, et al. If this is true, what does it imply? How end-user antibody validation facilitates insights into biology and disease. Asian J Urol. 2019;6(1):10–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor CR. Immunohistochemistry: growing pains, from a stain to an assay. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27(5):325–326.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torlakovic EE. How to Validate predictive immunohistochemistry testing in pathology? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(8):907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson-Corley KN, Hochstedler C, Sturm M, et al. Successful integration of the histology core laboratory in translational research. J Histotechnol. 2012;35(1):17–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, et al. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15(2):124–133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anagnostou VK, Welsh AW, Giltnane JM, et al. Analytic variability in immunohistochemistry biomarker studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(4):982–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskin DG, Hewitt SM. Improving the state of the science of immunohistochemistry: the Histochemical Society’s standards of practice. J Histochem Cytochem. 2014;62(10):691–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuzhny AE. The dark side of the immunohistochemical moon: industry. J Histochem Cytochem. 2009;57(12):1099–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor CR. An exaltation of experts: concerted efforts in the standardization of immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol. 1994;25(1):2–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor CR. Predictive biomarkers and companion diagnostics. The future of immunohistochemistry: “in situ proteomics,” or just a “stain”? Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2014;22(8):555–561.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pardue ML, Gall JG. Molecular hybridization of radioactive DNA to the DNA of cytological preparations. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1969;64(2):600–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer RH, Ward DC. Actin gene expression visualized in chicken muscle tissue culture by using in situ hybridization with a biotinylated nucleotide analog. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1982;79(23):7331–7335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Femino AM, Fay FS, Fogarty K, et al. Visualization of single RNA transcripts in situ. Science. 1998;280(5363):585–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raj A, van den Bogaard P, Rifkin SA, et al. Imaging individual mRNA molecules using multiple singly labeled probes. Nat Methods. 2008;5(10):877–879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Player AN, Shen L-P, Kenny D, et al. Single-copy gene detection using branched DNA (bDNA) in situ hybridization. J Histochem Cytochem. 2001;49(5):603–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang F, Flanagan J, Su N, et al. RNAscope: a novel in situ RNA analysis platform for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. J Mol Diagn. 2012;14(1):22–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi HM, Beck VA, Pierce NA. Next-generation in situ hybridization chain reaction: higher gain, lower cost, greater durability. ACS Nano. 2014;8(5):4284–4294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kishi JY, Lapan SW, Beliveau BJ, et al. SABER amplifies FISH: enhanced multiplexed imaging of RNA and DNA in cells and tissues. Nat Methods. 2019;16(6):533–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung HY, Yeung MHY, Leung WT, et al. The current and future applications of in situ hybridization technologies in anatomical pathology. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2022;22(1):5–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young AP, Jackson DJ, Wyeth RC. A technical review and guide to RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization. PeerJ. 2020;8:e8806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks DG, Longoria G, Pettay J, et al. In situ hybridization in the pathology laboratory: general principles, automation, and emerging research applications for tissue-based studies of gene expression. J Mol Histol. 2004;35(6):595–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gase J. Illuminating the history and process of photomicrography at the National Museum of Health and Medicine. 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 29]; Available from: https://www.medicalmuseum.mil/micrograph/index.cfm/posts/2019/photomicrography_history#:~:text=Some%20attribute%20it%20to%20Thomas,the%20first%20photomicrographs%3A%20plant%20sections
   Google Scholar
• Morrison AO, Gardner JM. Microscopic image photography techniques of the past, present, and future. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(12):1558–1564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley RS, Ben-Ezra JM, Massey D, et al. Digital photography: a primer for pathologists. J Clin Lab Anal. 2004;18(2):91–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital images and the future of digital pathology. J Pathol Inform. 2010;1(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pantanowitz L, Sharma A, Carter AB, et al. Twenty Years of digital pathology: an overview of the road travelled, what is on the horizon, and the emergence of vendor-neutral archives. J Pathol Inform. 2018;9(1):40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rossner M, Yamada KM. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol. 2004;166(1):11–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossner M. The JCB 2003: progress, policies, and procedures. J Cell Biol. 2003;161(5):837–838.
   Google Scholar
• Byers HR, Bhawan J. Pathologic parameters in the diagnosis and prognosis of primary cutaneous melanoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1998;12(4):717–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree IA, Tan PH, Travis WD, et al. Counting mitoses: SI(ze) matters! Mod Pathol. 2021;34(9):1651–1657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tizhoosh HR, Diamandis P, Campbell CJV, et al. Searching images for consensus: can AI remove observer variability in pathology? Am J Pathol. 2021;191(10):1702–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bockstal MR, Berlière M, Duhoux FP, et al. Interobserver variability in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020;154(5):596–609.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crissman JW, Goodman DG, Hildebrandt PK, et al. Best practices guideline: toxicologic histopathology. Toxicol Pathol. 2004;32(1):126–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson-Corley KN, Olivier AK, Meyerholz DK. Principles for valid histopathologic scoring in research. Vet Pathol. 2013;50(6):1007–1015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerholz DK, Beck AP. Principles and approaches for reproducible scoring of tissue stains in research. Lab Invest. 2018;98(7):844–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuomari D, Elliott G, Kulwich B, et al. Society of Toxicologic pathology position on histopathology data collection and audit trail: compliance with 21 CFR parts 58 and 11. Toxicol Pathol. 2004;32(1):122–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans AJ, Brown RW, Bui MM, et al. Validating whole slide imaging systems for diagnostic purposes in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2022;146(4):440–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chlipala E, Bendzinski CM, Chu K, et al. Optical density-based image analysis method for the evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin staining precision. J Histotechnol. 2020;43(1):29–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Cheng M, Huang S, et al. Recent advances of deep learning for computational histopathology: principles and applications. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5):1199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith B, Hermsen M, Lesser E, et al. Developing image analysis pipelines of whole-slide images: pre- and post-processing. J Clin Transl Sci. 2021;5(1):e38.
   Google Scholar
• Madabhushi A, Lee G. Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: challenges and opportunities. Med Image Anal. 2016;33:170–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lara H, Li Z, Abels E, et al. Quantitative image analysis for tissue biomarker use: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021;29(7):479–493.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zarella MD, Bowman; D, Aeffner F, et al. A practical guide to whole slide imaging: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(2):222–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health CDRH. Technical performance assessment of digital pathology whole slide imaging devices. Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. USDOHAHSFAD Administration, Editor. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Boehm U, Nelson G, Brown CM, et al. QUAREP-LiMi: a community endeavor to advance quality assessment and reproducibility in light microscopy. Nat Methods. 2021;18(12):1423–1426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch M, Symvoulidis P, Ntziachristos V. Tackling standardization in fluorescence molecular imaging. Nat Photonics. 2018;12(9):505–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levenson R, Beechem J, McNamara G. Spectral imaging in preclinical research and clinical pathology. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2012;35(5–6):339–361.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Linden MA, Sedgewick GJ, Ericson M. An innovative method for obtaining consistent images and quantification of histochemically stained specimens. J Histochem Cytochem. 2015;63(4):233–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macville MV, Van der Laak JAWM, Speel EJM, et al. Spectral imaging of multi-color chromogenic dyes in pathological specimens. Anal Cell Pathol. 2001;22(3):133–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menke J, Roelandse M, Ozyurt B, et al. The Rigor and transparency index quality metric for assessing biological and medical science methods. iScience. 2020;23(11):101698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):94–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scudamore CL, Soilleux EJ, Karp NA, et al. Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA guidelines. J Pathol. 2016;238(2):359–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod M, Collings AM, Graf C, et al. The MDAR (Materials design analysis reporting) framework for transparent reporting in the life sciences. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2021;118(17):e2103238118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonzani S, Fiorani S. The STAR Methods way towards reproducibility and open science. iScience. 2021;24(4):102137.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bandrowski A, Brush M, Grethe JS, et al. The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing. F1000Res. 2015;4:134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505(7485):612–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo Y, Hitz BC, Gabdank I, et al. New developments on the Encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE) data portal. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(D1):D882–D889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan CA, Chan ET, Davidson JM, et al. ENCODE data at the ENCODE portal. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D726–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel KB, Moore HM. Effects of preanalytical variables on the detection of proteins by immunohistochemistry in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(5):537–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor CR. The total test approach to standardization of immunohistochemistry. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):945–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grillo F, Bruzzone M, Pigozzi S, et al. Immunohistochemistry on old archival paraffin blocks: is there an expiry date? J Clin Pathol. 2017;70(11):988–993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bass BP, Engel KB, Greytak SR, et al. A review of preanalytical factors affecting molecular, protein, and morphological analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue: how well do you know your FFPE specimen? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(11):1520–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RW, Speranza VD, Alvarez JO, et al. Uniform labeling of blocks and slides in surgical pathology: guideline from the College of American pathologists Pathology and laboratory quality center and the national society for histotechnology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(12):1515–1524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baena-Del Valle JA, Zheng Q, Hicks JL, et al. Rapid loss of RNA detection by in situ hybridization in stored tissue blocks and preservation by cold storage of unstained slides. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;148(5):398–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgibbons PL. Challenges in improving preanalytic specimen handling of routine cancer biospecimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(11):1300–1301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton CC, Robb JA, Anderson MW, et al. Preanalytics and precision pathology: pathology practices to ensure molecular integrity of cancer patient biospecimens for precision medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(11):1346–1363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgibbons PL, Bradley LA, Fatheree LA, et al. Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: guideline from the college of American pathologists pathology and laboratory quality center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(11):1432–1443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grillo F, Pigozzi S, Ceriolo P, et al. Factors affecting immunoreactivity in long-term storage of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Histochem Cell Biol. 2015;144(1):93–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hojat A, Wei B, Olson MG, et al. Procurement and storage of surgical biospecimens. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1897:65–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gruber HE, Ingram J, Zinchenko N, et al. Practical histological methods for use with cultured cells. Biotech Histochem. 2009;84(6):283–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao S, Masilamani S, Sundaram S, et al. Quality measures in pre-analytical phase of tissue processing: understanding its value in histopathology. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):EC07–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mullink H, Henzen-Logmans SC, Tadema TM, et al. Influence of fixation and decalcification on the immunohistochemical staining of cell-specific markers in paraffin-embedded human bone biopsies. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985;33(11):1103–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapila SN, Boaz K, Natarajan S. The post-analytical phase of histopathology practice: storage, retention and use of human tissue specimens. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2016;6(1):3–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shidham VB. CellBlockistry: chemistry and art of cell-block making - A detailed review of various historical options with recent advances. Cytojournal. 2019;16:12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. International academy of cytology task force summary. diagnostic cytology towards the 21st century: an international expert conference and tutorial. Acta Cytol. 1998;42(1):25–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grizzle WE. Special symposium: fixation and tissue processing models. Biotech Histochem. 2009;84(5):185–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung JY, Song JS, Ylaya K, et al. Histomorphological and molecular assessments of the fixation times comparing formalin and ethanol-based fixatives. J Histochem Cytochem. 2018;66(2):121–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otali D, He Q, Stockard CR, et al. Preservation of immunorecognition by transferring cells from 10% neutral buffered formalin to 70% ethanol. Biotech Histochem. 2013;88(3–4):170–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintana C. Cryofixation, cryosubstitution, cryoembedding for ultrastructural, immunocytochemical and microanalytical studies. Micron. 1994;25(1):63–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouzari N, Olbricht S. Histologic pitfalls in the Mohs technique. Dermatol Clin. 2011;29(2):261–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LJ, Argenyi ZB, Whitaker DC. The preparation of frozen sections for micrographic surgery. A review of current methodology. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1993;19(11):1023–1029.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi SR, Liu C, Pootrakul L, et al. Evaluation of the value of frozen tissue section used as “gold standard” for immunohistochemistry. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129(3):358–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawamoto T. Use of a new adhesive film for the preparation of multi-purpose fresh-frozen sections from hard tissues, whole-animals, insects and plants. Arch Histol Cytol. 2003;66(2):123–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liou W, Geuze HJ, Slot JW. Improving structural integrity of cryosections for immunogold labeling. Histochem Cell Biol. 1996;106(1):41–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litwin JA. Light microscopic histochemistry on plastic sections. Prog Histochem Cytochem. 1985;16(2):1–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masuda T, Kawaguchi J, Oikawa H, et al. How thick are the paraffin-embedded tissue sections routinely prepared in laboratory? A morphometric study using a confocal laser scanning microscope. Pathol Int. 1998;48(3):179–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearse AD, Marks R. Measurement of section thickness in quantitative microscopy with special reference to enzyme histochemistry. J Clin Pathol. 1974;27(8):615–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCampbell AS, Raghunathan V, Tom-Moy M, et al. Tissue thickness effects on immunohistochemical staining intensity of markers of cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;27(5):345–355.
   Google Scholar
• Libard S, Cerjan D, Alafuzoff I. Characteristics of the tissue section that influence the staining outcome in immunohistochemistry. Histochem Cell Biol. 2019;151(1):91–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grube D. Constants and variables in immunohistochemistry. Arch Histol Cytol. 2004;67(2):115–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gambella A, Porro L, Pigozzi S, et al. Section detachment in immunohistochemistry: causes, troubleshooting, and problem-solving. Histochem Cell Biol. 2017;148(1):95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung CC, Swanson PE, Nielsen S, et al. Uneven staining in automated immunohistochemistry: cold and hot zones and implications for immunohistochemical analysis of biopsy specimens. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;26(5):299–304.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinhel IF, MacNeill FA, Hills MJ, et al. Extreme loss of immunoreactive p-Akt and p-Erk1/2 during routine fixation of primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(5):R76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blows FM, Ali HR, Dawson S-J, et al. Decline in antigenicity of tumor markers by storage time using pathology sections cut from tissue microarrays. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2016;24(3):221–226.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Economou M, Schöni L, Hammer C, et al. Proper paraffin slide storage is crucial for translational research projects involving immunohistochemistry stains. Clin Transl Med. 2014;3(1):4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fergenbaum JH, Garcia-Closas M, Hewitt SM, et al. Loss of antigenicity in stored sections of breast cancer tissue microarrays. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(4):667–672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen BB. Letter to the Editor. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(8):1145. author reply 1146-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirlacher M, Kasper M, Storz M, et al. Influence of slide aging on results of translational research studies using immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(11):1414–1420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf C, Jarutat T, Vega Harring S, et al. Determination of phosphorylated proteins in tissue specimens requires high-quality samples collected under stringent conditions. HIstopathol. 2014;64(3):431–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie R, Chung J-Y, Ylaya K, et al. Factors influencing the degradation of archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem. 2011;59(4):356–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasaki T, Kawabata Y, Suzuki N, et al. Decreased D2-40 immunoreactivity in stored paraffin sections and methods for preserving it. Biotech Histochem. 2014;89(6):412–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelb AB, Freeman VA, Astrow SH. Evaluation of methods for preserving PTEN antigenicity in stored paraffin sections. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2011;19(6):569–573.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forse CL, Pinnaduwage D, Bull SB, et al. Fresh cut versus stored cut paraffin-embedded tissue: effect on immunohistochemical staining for common Breast cancer markers. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;27(3):231.
   Google Scholar
• Omilian AR, Zirpoli GR, Cheng T-YD, et al. Storage of breast conditions and immunoreactivity cancer subtyping markers in tissue microarray sections. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2020;28(4):267–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Takada N, Hirokawa M, Ohbayashi C, et al. Re-evaluation of MIB-1 immunostaining for diagnosing hyalinizing trabecular tumour of the thyroid: semi-automated techniques with manual antigen retrieval are more accurate than fully automated techniques. Endocr J. 2018;65(2);239–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prichard JW. Overview of automated immunohistochemistry. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(12):1578–1582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valli V, Peters E, Williams C, et al. Optimizing methods in immunocytochemistry: one laboratory’s experience. Vet Clin Pathol. 2009;38(2):261–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arihiro K, Umemura S, Kurosumi M, et al. Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(3):356–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesterfeld S, Kraus HL, Reineke T, et al. Analysis of the reliability of manual and automated immunohistochemical staining procedures. A pilot study. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2003;25(2):90–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Neel T, Moreau A, Laboisse C, et al. Comparative evaluation of automated systems in immunohistochemistry. Clin Chim Acta. 1998;278(2):185–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau A, Le Neel T, Joubert M, et al. Approach to automation in immunohistochemistry. Clin Chim Acta. 1998;278(2):177–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi T, Ishiguro K. Development of an automatic machine for in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Anal Biochem. 1991;196(2):390–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaWhinney WH, Warford A, Rae MJ, et al. Automated immunochemistry. J Clin Pathol. 1990;43(7):591–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen C, Unger ER, Sgoutas D, et al. Automated immunohistochemical estrogen receptor in fixed embedded breast carcinomas: comparison with manual immunohistochemistry on frozen tissues. Am J Clin Pathol. 1989;92(5):669–672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu A, Chiriboga L, Narula N, et al. Validation of PD-L1 clone 22C3 immunohistochemical stain on two Ventana DISCOVERY autostainer models: detailed protocols, test performance characteristics, and interobserver reliability analyses. J Histotechnol. 2020;43(4):174–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold MM, Srivastava S, Fredenburgh J, et al. Effects of fixation and tissue processing on immunohistochemical demonstration of specific antigens. Biotech Histochem. 1996;71(5):224–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henwood AF. The application of heated detergent dewaxing and rehydration to immunohistochemistry. Biotech Histochem. 2012;87(1):46–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey P, Dixit A, Tanwar A, et al. A comparative study to evaluate liquid dish washing soap as an alternative to xylene and alcohol in deparaffinization and hematoxylin and eosin staining. J Lab Physicians. 2014;6(2):84–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Premalatha BR Patil S, Rao RS, et al. Mineral Oil—A biofriendly substitute for xylene in deparaffinization: a novel method. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(2):281–286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalantari N, Bayani M, Ghaffari T. Deparaffinization of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks using hot water instead of xylene. Anal Biochem. 2016;507:71–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faoláin EÓ, Hunter MB, Byrne JM, et al. Raman spectroscopic evaluation of efficacy of current paraffin wax section dewaxing agents. J Histochem Cytochem. 2005;53(1):121–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulsen IM, Dimke H, Frische S. A single simple procedure for dewaxing, hydration and heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) for immunohistochemistry in formalin fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Eur J Histochem. 2015;59(4):2532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dapson RW. Dye-tissue interactions: mechanisms, quantification and bonding parameters for dyes used in biological staining. Biotech Histochem. 2005;80(2):49–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titford M. The long history of hematoxylin. Biotech Histochem. 2005;80(2):73–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horobin RW. Biological staining: mechanisms and theory. Biotech Histochem. 2002;77(1):3–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kugler P. Enzyme histochemical methods applied in the brain. Eur J Morphol. 1990;28(2–4):109–120.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Emoto K, Yamashita S, Okada Y. Mechanisms of heat-induced antigen retrieval: does pH or ionic strength of the solution play a role for refolding antigens? J Histochem Cytochem. 2005;53(11):1311–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogen SA, Vani K, Sompuram SR. Molecular mechanisms of antigen retrieval: antigen retrieval reverses steric interference caused by formalin-induced cross-links. Biotech Histochem. 2009;84(5):207–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler CB, Evers DL, O’Leary TJ, et al. Antigen retrieval causes protein unfolding: evidence for a linear epitope model of recovered immunoreactivity. J Histochem Cytochem. 2011;59(4):366–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi SR, Shi Y, Taylor CR, et al. New dimensions of antigen retrieval technique: 28 years of development, practice, and expansion. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27(10):715–721.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boenisch T. Pretreatment for immunohistochemical staining simplified. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15(2):208–212.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramos-Vara JA. Principles and methods of immunohistochemistry. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1641:115–128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buchwalow I, Samoilova V, Boecker W, et al. Non-specific binding of antibodies in immunohistochemistry: fallacies and facts. Sci Rep. 2011;1(1):28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boenisch T. Formalin-fixed and heat-retrieved tissue antigens: a comparison of their immunoreactivity in experimental antibody diluents. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2001;9(2):176–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gendusa R, Scalia CR, Buscone S, et al. Elution of High-affinity (>10-9 K D) antibodies from tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem. 2014;62(7):519–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lott RL, Riccelli PV, Sheppard EA, et al. Immunohistochemical validation of rare tissues and antigens with low frequency of occurrence: recommendations from the Anatomic Pathology Patient Interest Association (APPIA). Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021;29(5):327.
   Google Scholar
• Buchwalow I, Samoilova V, Boecker W, et al. Multiple immunolabeling with antibodies from the same host species in combination with tyramide signal amplification. Acta Histochem. 2018;120(5):405–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Su N, Wang LC, et al. Quantitative ultrasensitive bright-field RNA in situ hybridization with RNAscope. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1211:201–212.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu W, Song H, Chen Q, et al. Recent advances in the selection and identification of antigen-specific nanobodies. Mol Immunol. 2018;96:37–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muyldermans S. Applications of Nanobodies. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2021;9(1):401–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi M, Sakota E, Nakamura Y. The efficient cell-SELEX strategy, Icell-SELEX, using isogenic cell lines for selection and counter-selection to generate RNA aptamers to cell surface proteins. Biochimie. 2016;131:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukari BA, Citartan M, Ch’ng ES, et al. Aptahistochemistry in diagnostic pathology: technical scrutiny and feasibility. Histochem Cell Biol. 2017;147(5):545–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pu Y, Liu Z, Lu Y, et al. Using DNA aptamer probe for immunostaining of cancer frozen tissues. Anal Chem. 2015;87(3):1919–1924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Castro MA, Rammner B, Opazo F. Aptamer Stainings for Super-resolution Microscopy. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1380:197–210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karp NA, Fry D. What is the optimum design for my animal experiment? BMJ Open Sci. 2021;5(1):e100126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roth J. Lectins for histochemical demonstration of glycans. Histochem Cell Biol. 2011;136(2):117–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorrelle N, Ganguly D, Dominguez ATA, et al. Improved multiplex immunohistochemistry for immune microenvironment evaluation of mouse formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. J Immunol. 2018;202(1):292–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolognesi MM, Manzoni M, Scalia CR, et al. Multiplex staining by sequential immunostaining and antibody removal on routine tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem. 2017;65(8):431–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krenacs T, Krenacs L, Raffeld M. Multiple antigen immunostaining procedures. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;588:281–300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van den Brand M, Hoevenaars BM, Sigmans JHM, et al. Sequential immunohistochemistry: a promising new tool for the pathology laboratory. Histopathology. 2014;65(5):651–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulsen JD, Zeck B, Sun K, et al. Keratin 19 and mesenchymal markers for evaluation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stem cell niche components in primary biliary cholangitis by sequential elution-stripping multiplex immunohistochemistry. J Histotechnol. 2020;43(4):163–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black S, Phillips D, Hickey JW, et al. CODEX multiplexed tissue imaging with DNA-conjugated antibodies. Nat Protoc. 2021;16(8):3802–3835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laberiano-Fernández C, Hernández-Ruiz S, Rojas F, et al. Best practices for technical reproducibility assessment of multiplex Immunofluorescence. Front Mol Biosci. 2021;8:660202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taube JM, Akturk G, Angelo M, et al. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer statement on best practices for multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunofluorescence (IF) staining and validation. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1):e000155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schofer C, Weipoltshammer K, Almeder M, et al. Signal amplification at the ultrastructural level using biotinylated tyramides and immunogold detection. Histochem Cell Biol. 1997;108(4–5):313–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunyady B, Krempels K, Harta G, et al. Immunohistochemical signal amplification by catalyzed reporter deposition and its application in double immunostaining. J Histochem Cytochem. 1996;44(12):1353–1362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaland I, Nordhus M, Gudlaugsson E, et al. Evaluation of 5 different labeled polymer immunohistochemical detection systems. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18(1):90–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warford A, Akbar H, Riberio D. Antigen retrieval, blocking, detection and visualisation systems in immunohistochemistry: a review and practical evaluation of tyramide and rolling circle amplification systems. Methods. 2014;70(1):28–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Loos CM. Chromogens in multiple immunohistochemical staining used for visual assessment and spectral imaging: the colorful future. J Histotechnol. 2010;33(1):31–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day WA, Lefever MR, Ochs RL, et al. Covalently deposited dyes: a new chromogen paradigm that facilitates analysis of multiple biomarkers in situ. Lab Invest. 2017;97(1):104–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billinton N, Knight AW. Seeing the wood through the trees: a review of techniques for distinguishing green fluorescent protein from endogenous autofluorescence. Anal Biochem. 2001;291(2):175–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viegas MS, Martins TC, Seco F, et al. An improved and cost-effective methodology for the reduction of autofluorescence in direct immunofluorescence studies on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. Eur J Histochem. 2007;51(1):59–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olympus. Microscopy resource center. [cited 2022 Jun 19]; Available from: https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource
   Google Scholar
• Zeiss. Education in microscopy and digital Imaging. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 19]; Available from: https://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu
   Google Scholar
• Cromey DW. Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2010;16(4):639–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoue T, Yagi Y. Color standardization and optimization in whole slide imaging. Clin Diagn Pathol. 2020;4(1). DOI:10.15761/CDP.1000139
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pritt BS, Gibson PC, Cooper K. Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: a proposal for general and academic use. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10(2):96–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasaki A. Recent advances in the standardization of fluorescence microscopy for quantitative image analysis. Biophys Rev. 2022;14(1):33–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yagi Y, Gilbertson JR. Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(3):109–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandrowski A. A decade of GigaScience: what can be learned from half a million RRIDs in the scientific literature? Gigascience. 2022;11. DOI:10.1093/gigascience/giac058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charalambakis NE, Ambulos NP, Hockberger P, et al. Establishing a national strategy for shared research resources in biomedical sciences. FASEB J. 2021;35(11):e21973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kos-Braun IC, Gerlach B, Pitzer C. A survey of research quality in core facilities. Elife. 2020;9. DOI:10.7554/eLife.62212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mische SM, Fisher NC, Meyn SM, et al. A review of the scientific rigor, reproducibility, and transparency studies conducted by the ABRF research groups. J Biomol Tech. 2020;31(1):11–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Restivo L, Gerlach B, Tsoory M, et al. Towards best practices in research: role of academic core facilities. EMBO Rep. 2021;22(12):e53824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decalf J, Albert ML, Ziai J. New tools for pathology: a user’s review of a highly multiplexed method for in situ analysis of protein and RNA expression in tissue. J Pathol. 2019;247(5):650–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGinnis LM, Ibarra‐Lopez V, Rost S, et al. Clinical and research applications of multiplexed immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. J Pathol. 2021;254(4):405–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eng J, Bucher E, Hu Z, et al. A framework for multiplex imaging optimization and reproducible analysis. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1):438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergholtz H, Carter J, Cesano A, et al. Best practices for spatial profiling for breast cancer research with the GeoMx(®) Digital spatial profiler. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakade VR, Weiss M, Cantley LG. Using imaging mass cytometry to define cell identities and interactions in human tissues. Front Physiol. 2021;12:817181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porta Siegel T, Hamm G, Bunch J, et al. Mass spectrometry imaging and integration with other imaging modalities for greater molecular understanding of biological tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20(6):888–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berglund L, Björling E, Oksvold P, et al. A genecentric human protein Atlas for expression profiles based on antibodies. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2008;7(10):2019–2027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponten F, Jirstrom K, Uhlen M. The human protein Atlas–a tool for pathology. J Pathol. 2008;216(4):387–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker M. When antibodies mislead: the quest for validation. Nature. 2020;585(7824):313–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babic Z, Capes-Davis A, Martone ME, et al. Incidences of problematic cell lines are lower in papers that use RRIDs to identify cell lines. Elife. 2019;8. DOI:10.7554/eLife.41676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar