Advertisement

In-Situ Hybridization to Sections (Nonradioactive)

  • Maria Rex
  • Paul J. Scotting
Part of the METHODS IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY™ book series (MIMB, volume 461)

1. Introduction

In-situ hybridization (ISH) takes advantage of the ability of mRNA within a cell to hybridize with exogenously applied complementary RNA (riboprobes) or DNA molecules. This interaction is visualized by labeling the applied nucleic acid probe with a detectable molecule (radioactive, such as 35S, or nonradi-oactive, such as digoxygenin [DIG]). The technique allows patterns of gene expression to be visualized in many tissues or cell types simultaneously. Nonradioactive ISH has several advantages over radioactive ISH. It lacks the biohazards associated with the use of radioisotopes, it takes days rather than weeks to get a visible signal, and it is cheaper. Using nonradioactive detection, the degree of cellular resolution is significantly improved over that achieved with autoradiography. Another advantage of nonradioactive ISH is that it can be performed in combination with other assays with relative ease, to compare mRNA and protein distribution in the same tissues (1),...

Keywords

Color Detection Sheep Serum Resuspend Pellet Blue Tetrazolium Chloride Alkaline Phosphatase Streptavidin 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Rex M, Scotting PJ (1994) Simultaneous detection of RNA and protein in tissue sections by nonradioactive in situ hybridization followed by immunohistochemistry. Biochemica [Boehringer Mannheim] 3:24–26.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angerer L, Angerer R (1991) Localisation of mRNAs by in situ hybridization. Meth Cell Biol 35:37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norton AJ, Jordan S, Yeomans P (1994) Brief, high temperature heat denaturation (pressure cooking): a simple and effective method of antigen retrieval for routinely processed tissues. J Pathol 173:371–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brouwer N, Van Dijken H, Ruiters MHJ, Van Willigen J-D, Horst GJ (1992) Localisation of dopamine D2 receptor mRNA with non-radioactive in-situ hybridization histochemistry. Neurosci Lett 142:223–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Komminoth P, Merk FB, Leav I, Wolfe HJ, Roth J (1992) Comparison of 35S-and digoxigenin-labeled RNA and oligonucleotide probes for ISH. Histochemistry 98217–228.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rex M, Church R, Tointon K, d Scotting, P. J. (1997) Combination of non-isotopic in situ hybridization with detection of enzyme activity, bromodeoxyuridine incorporation and immunohistochemical markers. Histochem Cell Biol 107:519–523.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rex M, Uwanogho DA, Orme A, Scotting PJ, Sharpe PT (1997) cSox21 exhibits a complex and dynamic pattern of transcription during embryonic development of the chick central nervous system. Med Dev 66:39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rex M, Orme A, Uwanogho D, Tointon K, Wigmore PM, Sharpe PT, Scotting PJ (1997) Dynamic expression of chicken Sox2 and Sox3 genes in ectoderm induced to form neural tissue. Dev Dynamics 209:323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uwanogho D, Rex M, Cartwright E, Pearl G, Scotting PJ, Sharpe PT (1995) Embryonic expression of the chicken Sox2, Sox3 and Sox11 genes suggests an interactive role in neuronal development. Mech Dev 49:23–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Rex
    • 1
  • Paul J. Scotting
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Genetics, Queen's Medical CentreUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations