Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Toxicol Pathol. 2015 Jul 7;43(6):883–889. doi: 10.1177/0192623315587593

Figure 1. Comparison of immune cell related markers between NBF and ZN treated mouse spleen tissues.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Images are showing IHC with 10 immune cell related markers on NBF or ZN treated murine spleen tissue sections. (A and B) IHC images are indicating the staining with antibody for (A) (a,b) CD3, (c,d) CD4, (e,f) CD8, (B) (a,b) B220 and (c,d) Foxp3, respectively. Whereas CD4 and CD8 positive cells were not detected on NBF treated spleen tissues, the IHC on ZN treated tissue sections shows staining positive cells. Scale bar indicates 200μm (a-h) and 50 μm (i-j). (C and D) IHC images are indicating the staining with antibody for (C) (a,b) F4/80, (c,d) CD68 and (D) (a,b) MHC class-I, (c,d) MHC class-II, (e,f) Gr-1, respectively. IHC with MHC class-I, -II and Gr-1 did not detect staining positive cells on NBF treated tissue sections. However, all markers were detected on ZN tissue sections. These indicate that ZN treatment on tissue is better for detecting various cell surface markers. Counterstaining is performed with hematoxylin. Whereas all NBF treated tissues were treated with antigen retrieval, most of ZN treated tissues were not treated except for Foxp3 and F4/80. Scale bar indicates 50 μm. Please also see Table 2 for the requirement of antigen retrieval.