Production of agarose blocks for fungal visualization
Producción de bloques de agarosa para visualización de hongos
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
How to Cite
Gómez Garzón, M., Munar Cristancho, T., Suarez Martínez, C., León Enciso, J., & Flórez, A. A. (2014). Production of agarose blocks for fungal visualization. Journal of Medicine and Surgery Repertoire, 23(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.31260/RepertMedCir.v23.n1.2014.740
Section
Research Article
License terms
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: to establish a protocol for obtaining fungal blocks using agarose as a matrix. Methods: the fungi were included in agarose, the process was standardized and the protocols were tested in microwave oven, conventional and in the automatic processor for obtaining sheets following the usual histological technique. Conclusions: the processor protocol to obtain multiple sheets is reproducible and the preparations allowed easy visualization of the fungi with H & E and Gomori colorations. Abbreviations: H & E, hematoxylin-eosin.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
References
1. Bravo Garcia M. Manual de técnicas y procedimientos histopatologicos. Mexico: Universidad Michoacana De San Nicolas De Hidalgo; 2011.
2. Kerstens HM, Robben JC, Poddighe PJ, Melchers WJ, Boonstra H, de Wilde PC, et al. AgarCyto: a novel cell-processing method for multiple molecular diagnostic analyses of the uterine cervix. J Histochem Cytochem. 2000 May;48(5):709-18.
3. Khan S, Omar T, Michelow P. Effectiveness of the cell block technique in diagnostic cytopathology. J Cytol. 2012 Jul; 29(3):177-82.
4. Nocito A, Kononen J, Kallioniemi OP, Sauter G. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) for high-throughput molecular pathology research. Int J Cancer. 2001 Oct 1; 94(1):1-5.
5. Powers CN. Diagnosis of infectious diseases: a cytopathologist’s perspective. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998 Apr; 11(2):341-65.
6. Molist P, Pombal M, Megias M. Atlas de histología vegetal y animal [monografía en Internet]. Vigo (Pontevedra, España): Universidad de Vigo; 2008 [citado 23 Sep. 2013]. Disponible en: http://webs.uvigo.es/mmegias/inicio.html.
7. Nietner T, Jarutat T, Mertens A. Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model. Virchows Archiv. 2012;461(3):259-69.
8. Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, Yaziji H, Hicks DG. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007 Jun; 15(2):124-33.
9. Emerson LL, Tripp SR, Baird BC, Layfield LJ, Rohr LR. A comparison of immunohistochemical stain quality in conventional and rapid microwave processed tissues. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 Feb;125(2):176-83.
10. Mathai AM, Naik R, Pai MR, Rai S, Baliga P. Microwave histoprocessing versus conventional histoprocessing. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2008 Jan-Mar; 51(1):12-6.
11. Nigro K, Tynski Z, Wasman J, Abdul-Karim F, Wang N. Comparison of cell block preparation methods for nongynecologic ThinPrep specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Oct;35(10):640-3.
12. Kavanagh K, Richardson M, Rautemaa R, Hietanen J. Medical Mycology. Cellular and Molecular Techniques. New York : John Wiley; 2007.
13. Zanoni DS, Grandi F, Cagnini DQ, Bosco SMG, Rocha NS. Agarose cell block technique as a complementary method in the diagnosis of fungal osteomyelitis in a dog. . Open Vet J. 2012;2:19-22.
14. Zanoni DS, Kleeb SR, Xavier JG. Emprego do cell block de agarose como método complementar no diagnóstico citológico de tumores mamários caninos. Ciênc. Rural. 2013;43(3):489-95.
2. Kerstens HM, Robben JC, Poddighe PJ, Melchers WJ, Boonstra H, de Wilde PC, et al. AgarCyto: a novel cell-processing method for multiple molecular diagnostic analyses of the uterine cervix. J Histochem Cytochem. 2000 May;48(5):709-18.
3. Khan S, Omar T, Michelow P. Effectiveness of the cell block technique in diagnostic cytopathology. J Cytol. 2012 Jul; 29(3):177-82.
4. Nocito A, Kononen J, Kallioniemi OP, Sauter G. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) for high-throughput molecular pathology research. Int J Cancer. 2001 Oct 1; 94(1):1-5.
5. Powers CN. Diagnosis of infectious diseases: a cytopathologist’s perspective. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998 Apr; 11(2):341-65.
6. Molist P, Pombal M, Megias M. Atlas de histología vegetal y animal [monografía en Internet]. Vigo (Pontevedra, España): Universidad de Vigo; 2008 [citado 23 Sep. 2013]. Disponible en: http://webs.uvigo.es/mmegias/inicio.html.
7. Nietner T, Jarutat T, Mertens A. Systematic comparison of tissue fixation with alternative fixatives to conventional tissue fixation with buffered formalin in a xenograft-based model. Virchows Archiv. 2012;461(3):259-69.
8. Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, Yaziji H, Hicks DG. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007 Jun; 15(2):124-33.
9. Emerson LL, Tripp SR, Baird BC, Layfield LJ, Rohr LR. A comparison of immunohistochemical stain quality in conventional and rapid microwave processed tissues. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 Feb;125(2):176-83.
10. Mathai AM, Naik R, Pai MR, Rai S, Baliga P. Microwave histoprocessing versus conventional histoprocessing. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2008 Jan-Mar; 51(1):12-6.
11. Nigro K, Tynski Z, Wasman J, Abdul-Karim F, Wang N. Comparison of cell block preparation methods for nongynecologic ThinPrep specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Oct;35(10):640-3.
12. Kavanagh K, Richardson M, Rautemaa R, Hietanen J. Medical Mycology. Cellular and Molecular Techniques. New York : John Wiley; 2007.
13. Zanoni DS, Grandi F, Cagnini DQ, Bosco SMG, Rocha NS. Agarose cell block technique as a complementary method in the diagnosis of fungal osteomyelitis in a dog. . Open Vet J. 2012;2:19-22.
14. Zanoni DS, Kleeb SR, Xavier JG. Emprego do cell block de agarose como método complementar no diagnóstico citológico de tumores mamários caninos. Ciênc. Rural. 2013;43(3):489-95.