Journal of Molecular Histology

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 459–462 | Cite as

A simple method for the production of bacterial controls for immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization

  • Camilla Recordati
  • Enrico Radaelli
  • Kenneth W. Simpson
  • Eugenio Scanziani
Brief Communication


Immunohistochemical and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) assays are useful diagnostic methods for the identification of bacteria on formalin fixed paraffin embedded histological sections. To validate an anti-bacterial antibody or an oligonucleotide probe and to ensure fidelity during subsequent analyses, suitable positive and negative controls are necessary. Suspensions of fixed bacteria are often used, but ideally, these controls should be fixed, embedded and processed in the same way of tissue samples under analysis. Herein, we describe a simple method for the production of bacterial histological control samples: the sandwich. The sandwich is composed of two external layers of equine lung parenchyma and a central layer of the target bacterium. We prepared sandwiches containing Escherichia coli, Campylobacter jejuni, and Arcanobacterium pyogenes and tested them with appropriate antibodies and Eub338 FISH probe. The sandwich is an effective and simple method to prepare bacterial histological controls fixed and processed in the same way as the diagnostic tissues.


Immunohistochemistry Fluorescent in situ hybridization Bacteria Controls 



We thank A. Invernizzi for the bacterial cultures, G. Lombardi for the rabbit polyclonal anti-A. pyogenes antibody, and M. Barzani and M. Brevi for technical support.


  1. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 59:143–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boye M, Jensen TK, Møller K, Leser TD, Jorsal SE (1998) Specific detection of Lawsonia intracellularis in porcine proliferative enteropathy inferred from fluorescent rRNA in situ hybridization. Vet Pathol 35:153–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burry RW (2000) Specificity controls for immunocytochemical methods. J Histochem Cytochem 48:163–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. DeLong EF, Wickham GS, Pace NR (1989) Phylogenetic stains: ribosomal RNA-based probes for the identification of single microbial cells. Science 243:1360–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hsu SM, Raine L, Fanger H (1981) Use of avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) in immunoperoxidase techniques: a comparison between ABC and unlabeled antibody (PAP) procedures. J Histochem Cytochem 29:577–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jensen TK, Boye M, Hagedorn-Olsen T, Riising HJ, Angen O (1999) Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae osteomyelitis in pigs demonstrated by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Vet Pathol 36:258–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Miller K (2002) Immunocytochemical techniques. In: Bancroft JD, Gamble M (eds) Theory and practice of histological techniques, 5th edn edn. Churchill Livingston, Elsevier, pp 421–464Google Scholar
  8. Priestnall SL, Wiinberg B, Spohr A, Neuhaus B, Kuffer M, Wiedmann M, Simpson KW (2004) Evaluation of “Helicobacter heilmannii” subtypes in the gastric mucosas of cats and dogs. J Clin Microbiol 42:2144–2151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ward JM (2004) Controls for immunohistochemistry: is “brown” good enough? Toxicol Pathol 32:273–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camilla Recordati
    • 1
  • Enrico Radaelli
    • 1
  • Kenneth W. Simpson
    • 2
  • Eugenio Scanziani
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, Sezione di Anatomia Patologica Veterinaria e Patologia Aviare, Facoltà di Medicina VeterinariaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary MedicineCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations