Immunostaining with Monoclonal Antibodies to Eosinophil Cationic Protein (EG1 and EG2) does not Distinguish between Resting and Activated Eosinophils in Formalin-Fixed Tissue Specimens

  • Frode Jahnsen
  • Trond S. Halstensen
  • Per Brandtzaeg
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 371)


Activated eosinophils release highly toxic cationic proteins which are important in the defence against parasites. However, activated eosinophils may also induce tissue damage and have been reported to be associated with lesions of various allergic and inflammatory disorders. Tai et al.1 raised two monoclonal antibodies (mA) against eosinophil cationic protein (ECP); mA EG1 recognized both the stored and secreted forms of ECP, whereas mA EG2 was claimed to identify only the secretory product. mA EG2 has therefore been used in several immunohistochemical studies to identify activated eosinophils in formalin- fixed tissue specimens.1–10 The aim of our investigation was to examine whether this application of EG2 is valid.


Tissue Specimen Inflammatory Disorder Secretory Product Eosinophil Cationic Protein Unstimulated Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. C. Tai, C. J. F. Spry, C. Peterson, P. Venge, and I. Olsson, Nature 309: 182 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Fredens, H. Dybdahl, R. Dahl, and U. Baandrup, APMIS 96: 711 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Hällgren, J. F. Colombel, R. Dahl, K. Fredens, A. Kruse, N. O. Jacobsen, P. Venge, and J. C. Rambaud, Am. J. Med. 86: 56 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. A. Lundin, K. Fredens, G. Michaëlsson, and P. Venge, Br. J. Dermatol. 122: 181 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Hällgren, S. O. Bohman, and K. Fredens, Nephron 59: 266 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. C. Tai, S. J. Ackerman, C. J. F. Spry, S. Dunnette, E. G. J. Olsen, and G. J. Gleich, Lancet 1: 643 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. J. F. Spry, P. C. Tai, and J. Barkans, Int. Archs Allergy Appl. Immunol. 77: 252 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Tøttrup, K. Fredens, J. P. Funch, S. Aggestrup, and R. Dahl, Dig. Dis. Sci. 34: 1894 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.-C. Tai, M. E. Holt, P. Denny, A. R. Gibbs, B. D. Williams, and C. J. F. Spry, Br. Med. J. 289: 400 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Bousquet, P. Chanez, J. Y. Locoste, G. Barneon, N. Ghavanian, I. Enander, P. Venge, S. Ahlstedt, J. Simony-Lafontaine, P. Godard, and F.-B. Michel, N. Engl. J. Med. 323: 1033 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Mason, in: “Techniques in Immunocytochemistry”, G.R. Bullock and P. Petrusz, eds., p. 25, Academic Press (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frode Jahnsen
    • 1
  • Trond S. Halstensen
    • 1
  • Per Brandtzaeg
    • 1
  1. 1.LIIPAT, Institute for Pathology, The National Hospital, RikshospitaletUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations