21 Molecular pathology
Introduction
Molecular pathology techniques have been used in the clinical laboratory to aid in the diagnosis and monitoring of treatment regimens of many infectious diseases such as HIV, hepatitis B, and tuberculosis (Netterwald 2006). These tests are usually performed on serological or other body fluids, such as sputum and seminal fluid. Currently the most well-known and most advertised molecular testing is for human papillomavirus (HPV) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).
Clinical and research laboratories may use additional molecular pathology techniques, such as blotting methods which are used to study extracted ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Blotting methods consist of extracting DNA and/or RNA from homogenized tissues and then analyzing them using dot, Southern and Northern blotting filter hybridization methods (Sambrook et al. 1989). Blotting techniques such as these are powerful tools for the qualitative analysis of extracted nucleic acid from fresh or frozen cells and frozen tissues.
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is included in molecular pathology methods. PCR is a common method of creating copies of specific fragments of DNA. It rapidly amplifies a single DNA molecule into many billions of copies. In one application of the technology, small samples of DNA, such as those found in a strand of hair at a crime scene, can produce sufficient material to carry out forensic tests. PCR may also be used in addition to in situ hybridization (ISH) to study a specific genome of a tissue (Innis et al. 1990).
All of this leads to the role the histology laboratory plays in molecular pathology. In the histology laboratory the main method used in molecular pathology is ISH. John et al. (1969) and Gall and Pardue (1969) described the technique of ISH almost simultaneously.
The method consists of denaturing (breaking apart) DNA and RNA strands using heat. A probe (a labeled complementary single strand) is incorporated with the DNA/RNA strands of interest. The strands will anneal with complementary nucleotides bonding back together with their homologous partners when cooled (Fig. 21.1). Some will anneal with the original complementary strands, but some will also anneal or hybridize with the probe. As probes increase in length, they become more specific. The chances of a probe finding a homologous sequence other than the target sequence decreases as the number of nucleotides in the probe increases. A longer probe can hybridize less specifically than shorter probes. Optimal probe size for ISH is small fragments of about 200–300 nucleotides. However, probes may be as small as 20–40 base pairs (bp) or as large as 1000 bp.
• DNA and mRNA are not as sensitive to formalin fixatives.
• Probe-target hybrid is stronger than antibody-antigen complex.
• Provides an alternative means of detection when reliable antibodies are not available.
It is important to understand the ‘how and why’ of the different stages in the ISH process in order for the testing to result in a functional outcome. This revised chapter continues to focus on the ‘how and why’ of ISH, and includes a review of automated ISH versus the manual processes (Sterchi 2008). It also includes a revised comprehensive review of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) staining procedures and analysis.
Applications
There are many modifications of ISH methods that relate to application needs. Although the demonstration of DNA and RNA sequences by ISH is a valuable research tool, according to Warford and Lauder (1991) and Mitchell et al. (1992), it is also used diagnostically in:
ISH comes in many forms and methods, and over the past 10 to 20 years the methodology has expanded significantly. At one time only FISH was the ‘standard’ method for ISH. Now there are methods that allow visualization of the stain using a bright field microscope, reducing the need for a fluorescence microscope. However, FISH still has an advantage over chromogenic methods for labeling specific nucleic acid sequences in cells and tissues. It is a ‘direct’ technique, so it is faster and in some cases it does not require IHC-like detection. These probes employ fluorescent (fluorescein) tags that glow under ultraviolet light to detect the hybridization. FISH allows the use of multiple probes on the same tissue that may spatially or spectrally overlap. The literature suggests that it is possible to distinguish at least four or five different fluorescent signals in a single sample (Haugland & Spence 2005), whereas chromagens are often limited to one or two color options per slide. FISH, also known as molecular cytogenetics, has enabled a huge advance in the diagnostic and prognostic capability of the clinical cytogenetic laboratory. FISH can also vividly paint chromosomes or portions of chromosomes with fluorescent molecules (thus, the term ‘chromosome painting’).
ISH can provide cytological information on the location and alteration of genomic sequences in chromosomes. Traditionally, the technique has been applied to metaphase chromosome spreads (Davis et al. 1984; Lux et al. 1990), but it has been shown to be applicable to interphase nuclei (Hopman et al. 1988; Poddighe et al. 1992). Routine paraffin wax preparations of tissues can be used and ‘interphase cytogenetics’, as the method is termed, can provide direct information on chromosomal abnormalities in unselected tumor cell populations.
Viral identification can be undertaken using a variety of methods, of which only immunohistochemistry and ISH provide simultaneous morphological information. The sensitivity of immunohistochemistry for the visualization of viral antigens, and ISH for the demonstration of cytomegalovirus, correlate well (Van den Berg et al. 1989). Most viral ISH methods use probes for DNA. Others, such as in the demonstration of the Epstein-Barr virus (Fig. 21.2), the detection of a virally encoded RNA transcript, provide results that are more sensitive than the use of antibodies and may even approach that of the PCR (Pringle et al. 1992).
Figure 21.2 Example of automatic chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) staining.
(a) Epstein-Barr virus-encoded RNA (EBER) and (b) cytomegalovirus (CMV).
(Photographs courtesy of Leica Microsystems, Inc.)
The light chain portion kappa and lambda mRNA may be detected in normal and neoplastic B cells in human lymphoid tissue. Restriction of either kappa or lambda mRNA denotes monoclonality of lymphoid neoplasms and is useful in distinguishing between neoplastic and reactive lymphoid proliferations. Due to the destruction of RNAases by formalin fixation, kappa and lambda sequences are conserved in routine surgical tissues. (See Data Sheet Kappa and Lambda Probe ISH Kit, Novacastra.) (Fig. 21.3.)
Figure 21.3 Example of automatic chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) staining (a) kappa (b) lambda.
(Photographs courtesy of Leica Microsystems, Inc.)
Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is a method ‘that enables the detection of gene expression in the nucleus using a conventional histochemical reaction’ (White 2005); it is used for the detection of abnormal genes and to identify a gene therapy treatment direction. CISH can be used as an alternative in screening archived breast cancer tissue samples for HER2/neu (type 1 growth factor receptor gene) (Madrid & Lo 2004). Automated CISH techniques were used for detecting light chain expression in paraffin sections on plasma cell dyscrasias and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas ‘appeared superior to IHC’ in that the ISH resulted with no background staining (Beck et al. 2003).
Silver precipitation in situ hybridization (SISH) is an emerging ISH method that works well with formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues. It is also similar to FISH performance in detecting the location of genomic targets using probes. The major advantage of CISH and SISH is the possibility of long term storage of the stained slides. The chromagens or silver signals do not quench over time, unlike FISH signals (Fig. 21.4).
Figure 21.4 Example of automatic silver (silver deposition technology) in situ hybridization (SISH) staining.
(a) HER2 and Chr17. (b) HER2 and Chr17.
(Photographs courtesy of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc.)
In situ zymography (ISZ) is a method that uses specific protease substrates to detect and localize protease activities in tissue sections. In the regulation of biological processes, proteases modulate several cellular functions. Several molecular techniques identify and characterize proteases in cells and tissue, such as a Northern blot and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but ISZ works as well. One of its drawbacks is that unfixed fresh frozen tissues must be used. In contrast, its advantages are that it costs less than conventional ISH methods, there are two approaches (one uses a photographic emulsion, the other uses a fluorescent-labeled substrate) and it is applicable to almost any protease (Yan & Blomme 2003).
Immunolabeling electron microscopy (IEM) in combination with ISH has been used in detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Viral immunogold labeling and ultrastructural ISH were used to analyze the morphogenesis of this recently emergent virus. A negative-sense riboprobe was used for the ultrastructural ISH (Goldsmith et al. 2004).
Polymerase chain reaction-ISH (PISH) is another form of ISH. Viral RNA is detected by RT-PCR, using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE). PISH results have been compared to IHC on staining for Newcastle disease in veterinary medicine. Newcastle disease is an avian viral infection that has a potential for rapid spread and may cause serious economic impact and international trade restrictions in the poultry industry (Wakamatsu et al. 2005). PISH is also used in the detection of human papillomavirus in uterine cervical neoplasia (Xiao et al. 2001).
ISH methods have been developed over the years so that most FFPE tissues, including decalcified tissues, can be used (Janneke et al. 1999).
Another area in which in situ hybridization and immunochemistry can be viewed as complementary techniques is in the phenotyping of tumors. Many monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies are available for phenotyping and these may be employed in sensitive and rapid techniques. When problems arise in the interpretation of immunohistochemical results, mRNA phenotyping by in situ hybridization can be helpful (Pringle et al. 1990, 1993; Kendall et al. 1991; Ruprai et al. 1991).
Common reagents
1. Diethylpyrocarbonate (DEPC) treated water
2. 2% aminoalkylsilane (positively charged slides)
These slides may be purchased pre-coated
Make sure they are RNA/DNA free
Aliquot and freeze below −20°C
5. 0.1 M triethanolamine (TEA), freshly made
6. 1 M Tris (this is to make buffers that vary in pH: buffer #1, pH 7.5; buffer #2, pH 9.5)
9. Maleic acid buffer a washing buffer
10. 20× Saline sodium citrate (SSC) buffer (this is also used to make 2× SCC and 1× SCC buffers)
(may cause increase in background)
14. Detection method reagents:
15. Colorimetric detection reagents:
Probes and their choice
Probe preparation and labeling
• Direct: the reporter molecules (enzyme, radioisotope or fluorescent marker) are directly attached to the DNA or RNA.
• Indirect: a hapten (biotin, digoxigenin, or fluorescein) is attached to the probe and detected by a labeled binding protein (typically an antibody).
Methods for incorporating labels into DNA are nick translation and random primer methods.
Preparation of the dilution series
1. Dilute the labeling probe using dilution buffer to a starting concentration of 2.5 pmol/µl.
2. Make a dilution series of purified probe in Eppendorf tubes to give nucleic acid concentrations of 300 pg/µl, 100 pg/µl, 30 pg/µl, 10 pg/µl, 3 pg/µl, and one tube containing diluent only. Ensure that all tube volumes are equal. Repeat the same dilution series with your control or used pre-labeled (with control) test strips.
3. Apply 1 µl drops from each tube onto the nylon membrane (Roche). The control dilutions should be lined up with the test sample dilution concentration. For an example of placing spots, see Figure 21.5.
4. Label the position of each application with a pencil on the side of the strip (not on the strip).
5. Fix the nucleic acid to the membrane by either baking the membrane for 30 minutes at 120°C or using a UV light.
6. Wash the membrane briefly in washing buffer.
7. Immerse in blocking solution for 10 minutes.
8. Incubate with reagents used in ISH detection technique.
Note: Dilute reagents in blocking solution and use this solution for washing.
9. Detect enzyme using the same solutions and procedure as for ISH method.
Detection
Detection methods can be either direct or indirect. Incorporation of a stable hapten to a probe is the cornerstone of non-radiographic detection. Hybridized probes can be detected by enzymatic reactions that produce a colored precipitate at the site of hybridization. The most commonly used enzymes for this application are alkaline phosphatase (AP) and horseradish peroxidase (HRP). Although these enzymes can be conjugated directly to nucleic acid probes, such enzyme-coupled probes are often inappropriate for ISH to tissue preparations because probe penetration is hampered by the presence of the conjugated enzyme. Therefore, indirect methods are preferred (Knoll & Lichter 1995).
Direct detection of a fluorescent label is often employed for the demonstration of multiple chromosome targets (Nederlof et al. 1989), but when single target sequences are to be identified, indirect methods may be used.
Indirect detection procedures offer increased sensitivity. The selection of the enzyme and substrate (De Jong et al. 1985) should be included in weighing the benefits of different detection systems. A substrate system that employs conjugated antibodies such as anti-DIG or anti-FITC that are conjugated with AP together with the application of a colorimetric BCIP/NBT that can be cycled to produce an insoluble blue/black precipitate over a period of 24 hours is recommended. Another substrate system one could use for a more intense fluorescent signal is a fluorescent 2-hydroxy-3-naphthoic acid-2′-phenylanilide phosphate (HNPP) with fast red TR.
Many commercially available probes for ISH are labeled with biotin. When used in combination with streptavidin detection systems, high sensitivity can be achieved. A disadvantage of this combination is having a widespread endogenous tissue distribution. Substantial quantities of endogenous biotin are, for example, present in the liver and kidney (Wood & Warnke 1981), as well as in other tissues, such as pituitary, submandibular gland, thyroid, and parathyroid. Furthermore, proliferating cells may often produce enough biotin to make the discrimination between true and false-positive results difficult. However, methods of blocking endogenous biotin have greatly improved and work well to prevent false positives.
Digoxigenin (Herrington et al. 1989) in combination with a Fab fragment-enzyme conjugate detection system currently provides results of equal or superior sensitivity to biotin, with extremely low non-specific background staining. Another label that may be used in conjunction with a single-step detection method is fluorescein. Using this label it is possible to undertake rapid ISH methods in which target sequences of moderate to high copy number can be demonstrated in a working day.