Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026

Automated Multiplex Immunofluorescence Panel for Immuno-oncology Studies on Formalin-fixed Carcinoma Tissue Specimens
Published on: January 21, 2019
Ultrastructural immunolabeling in diagnostic surgical pathology: illustrative cases
1Department of Pathology, University of Alabama, Birmingham 35233.
Insights
Ultrastructural immunolabeling offers a sensitive and reproducible method for surgical pathology diagnostics. This technique precisely localizes antigens, aiding in tumor characterization when other methods fail.
Area of Science:
- Pathology
- Immunohistochemistry
- Electron Microscopy
Background:
- Surgical pathology diagnoses can be challenging, particularly when relying on light microscopy immunocytochemistry.
- Subtle or focal antigen expression may be missed by conventional methods.
Observation:
- Ultrastructural immunolabeling uses immunogold labeling for precise antigen localization.
- Specimens are fixed in formaldehyde and embedded in LR White resin.
- This method preserves ultrastructural morphology while allowing detailed immunomorphologic assessment.
Findings:
- Ultrastructural immunolabeling is more sensitive than light microscopic immunocytochemistry.
- It clarifies doubtful immunocytochemistry results by detecting small antigen amounts.
- Focally positive reactions and specific cellular localization of antigens are identified.
Implications:
- This technique aids in resolving diagnostic dilemmas in surgical pathology.
- It is crucial for characterizing tumors that are difficult to classify by other means.
- Provides immunomorphologic correlation for accurate diagnostic interpretation.
Abstract:
Ultrastructural immunolabeling techniques can be reproducibly applied to resolve diagnostic dilemmas in surgical pathology. The technique utilized for processing and labeling the cases presented in this article is simple and reproducible. The specimens were fixed in Carson-Millonig phosphate-buffered 4% formaldehyde fixative and embedded in LR White resin following a well-described protocol. Immunogold labeling allows precise localization of antigenic sites without compromise of the underlying ultrastructural morphologic findings; thus detailed immunomorphologic assessment is achieved. Immunoelectron microscopy techniques permit clarification of doubtful immunocytochemistry results by labeling antigenic epitopes in cases in which light microscopy immunocytochemistry techniques fail to show unequivocal positive results (probably as a consequence of small amounts of detectable antigen present in the tissues). Not only does ultrastructural labeling permit identification of focally positive reactions essential for accurate diagnosis in a given case, but it also localizes the antigenic determinants to specific cellular sites, providing immunomorphologic correlation. The specificity of the interpreted results can then be judged accordingly. Overall, ultrastructural immunolabeling is more sensitive than light microscopic immunocytochemistry. Ultrastructural immunolabeling can play a crucial role in the characterization of some tumors that cannot be accurately classified with other diagnostic techniques, even when combined.

