Why the study?
Does ISOL reduce false-positive results compared to ISEL and TUNEL in detecting myocyte apoptosis in human heart tissue?
Does ISOL reduce false-positive results compared to ISEL and TUNEL in detecting myocyte apoptosis in human heart tissue?
ISOL provides a more specific method with fewer false positives for detecting cardiomyocyte apoptosis in human heart tissue compared to TUNEL and ISEL.
May enhance specificity for myocyte apoptosis detection; leaves open validation before routine use in cardiac pathology.
We assessed the efficiency of detecting myocyte apoptosis within human hearts using in situ enzymatic reactions in paraffin-embedded tissue samples: in situ end labeling (ISEL), terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick-end labeling (TUNEL), and in situ oligoligation (ISOL). The reactions were carried out in explanted hearts (idiopathic dilatative cardiomyopathy, n = 6; ischemic heart disease, n = 3) and in endomyocardial biopsy specimens (EMBs; n = 32) obtained from transplanted human hearts. The results were verified by DNA laddering. The ISOL reaction led to a significantly (P = .027) smaller number of false-positive results (2/41 [5%]) compared with assessment by ISEL (9/41 [22%]) or TUNEL (9/41 [22%]). Only 1 ISEL+ apoptotic cardiomyocyte was found in specimens from explanted hearts. Among the EMBs, 1 specimens had TUNEL+ apoptotic cardiomyocytes and 1 specimen had ISEL+ apoptotic cardiomyocytes. This implies that verifying results by independent methods must be used for TUNEL and ISEL techniques. A smaller number of false-positive results makes interpretation of ISOL results easier, although the sensitivity of this reaction remains to be established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lesauskaitė et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: