Validating Immunohistochemistry Assay Specificity in Investigative Studies: Considerations for a Weight of Evidence Approach

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a fundamental molecular technique that provides information on protein expression in the context of spatial localization and tissue morphology. IHC is used in all facets of pathology from identifying infectious agents or characterizing tumors in diagnostics, to characterizing cellular and molecular processes in investigative and experimental studies. Confidence in an IHC assay is primarily driven by the degree to which it is validated. There are many approaches to validate an IHC assay’s specificity including bioinformatics approaches using published protein sequences, careful design of positive and negative tissue controls, use of cell pellets with known target protein expression, corroboration of IHC findings with western blots and other analytical methods, and replacement of the primary antibody with an appropriate negative control reagent. Each approach has inherent strengths and weaknesses, and the thoughtful use of these approaches provides cumulative evidence, or a weight of evidence, to support the IHC assay’s specificity and build confidence in a study’s conclusions. Although it is difficult to be 100% confident in the specificity of any IHC assay, it is important to consider how validation approaches provide evidence to support or to question the specificity of labeling, and how that evidence affects the overall interpretation of a study’s results. In this review, we discuss different approaches for IHC antibody validation, with an emphasis on the characterization of antibody specificity in investigative studies. While this review is not prescriptive, it is hoped that it will be thought provoking when considering the interpretation of IHC results.