top of page
LabNexus full with slogan (1).png

Subscribe to our Histoblog

IHC vs IF: Which Is Better for Your Tissue Research?

  • Writer: Eghosa Arovo
    Eghosa Arovo
  • 1 day ago
  • 4 min read

IHC or IF? Here’s how to choose the right technique for your tissue research.


Top: IF for Phalloidin and DAPI in Human Bone Marrow-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells - STAINSFILE. Bottom: In-house stained IHC Multiplex
Top: IF for Phalloidin and DAPI in Human Bone Marrow-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells - STAINSFILE. Bottom: In-house stained IHC Multiplex

Introduction


When planning a tissue-based research project, one of the most common questions researchers ask is:Should I use immunohistochemistry (IHC) or immunofluorescence (IF)?


Both techniques use antibodies to detect proteins in tissue, and both are powerful tools in cancer and tissue research. However, they differ significantly in practicality, robustness, interpretability, and long-term usability.


In this blog, we compare IHC vs IF and explain why—for most research applications—chromogenic IHC remains the more reliable, scalable, and cost-effective choice.


Quick recap: What’s the difference?


Immunohistochemistry (IHC)Uses enzyme-linked antibodies and chromogens (e.g. brown DAB, red, purple, teal, yellow) to produce coloured precipitates at antigen sites. Slides are viewed using a standard brightfield microscope.


Immunofluorescence (IF)Uses fluorescently labelled antibodies (fluorophores) that emit light under specific wavelengths and must be visualised using a fluorescence microscope or scanner.


Both detect proteins accurately—but the way the signal behaves over time, and how easily it integrates into real research workflows, is where the key differences appear.


Why IHC is usually the better choice for research

1. Permanent, archive-ready slides


One of the biggest practical advantages of chromogenic IHC is signal stability.

  • DAB and other chromogens form insoluble, permanent precipitates

  • Slides can be stored for years without signal loss

  • Data can be re-reviewed, rescanned, or published long after staining


By contrast, IF signals fade over time (photobleaching), especially with repeated imaging or long-term storage. This makes IF less suitable for retrospective studies, biobanking projects, and long-term datasets.(Bancroft & Gamble, 2020)


2. Easier interpretation and validation


IHC slides are:

  • Viewed in brightfield

  • Interpretable by anyone trained in histology

  • Directly comparable to decades of published literature

Most antibody datasheets, validation studies, and scoring systems are built around IHC-DAB. That means your results are easier to benchmark, validate, and publish.


IF, while powerful, often requires:

  • Careful spectral compensation

  • Autofluorescence correction

  • Specialised imaging and software

This adds complexity and variability—especially across labs and projects.


3. Lower technical and financial barriers


Chromogenic IHC requires:

  • Standard microscopes

  • Simple image capture

  • Lower-cost reagents and consumables

IF requires:

  • Fluorescence microscopes or scanners

  • Expensive fluorophores

  • Ongoing calibration and maintenance

  • Dark storage and careful handling to prevent signal loss

For most research teams, especially in academic and translational settings, IHC delivers far better cost-to-value.


4. Excellent compatibility with multiplexing


Many researchers assume that IF is required for multiplexing. In reality, chromogenic multiplex IHC is now highly advanced.

Using different chromogens—such as:


Red, Purple, Teal, Blue, Green, Yellow, DAB, and Silver


You can visualise multiple antigens on the same tissue section with excellent contrast.

Even better, chromogenic multiplex enables the “1 + 1 = 3” effect:when two colours co-localise, they produce a third colour—making double-positive cells visually obvious without complex software.


This allows robust multiplexing while retaining all the benefits of brightfield histology.(Maiques et al., 2022)


5. Ideal for digital pathology and AI analysis


Chromogenic IHC is highly compatible with:

  • Whole-slide scanning

  • Quantitative image analysis

  • AI-based segmentation

  • Long-term dataset generation


Clear colour separation and stable signal make chromogenic slides easier to analyse reproducibly than fluorescence images, which can vary with scanner settings, exposure time, and signal decay.


When does IF make sense?


To be balanced, IF does have real strengths.

You may prefer IF if you:

  • Need extremely high sensitivity for very low-abundance proteins

  • Require ultra-high multiplexing (6–20+ markers)

  • Are working in subcellular localisation or signalling studies

  • Already have a fully optimised fluorescence imaging pipeline


IF is also valuable in exploratory or mechanistic studies—but it is rarely the most practical option for routine, scalable, or translational histology research.


Why most researchers still choose IHC


For the majority of cancer, immunology, and tissue-based projects, IHC offers the best balance of:

  • Robustness

  • Interpretability

  • Reproducibility

  • Cost efficiency

  • Archival stability


That’s why it remains the global workhorse of histology—even as multiplex and spatial biology workflows evolve.


LabNexus: Your IHC specialist partner


At LabNexus, we are purpose-built to support high-quality chromogenic IHC for research.


We offer:

  • Single-plex IHC using classic DAB

  • Single-plex IHC using bright chromogens(Red, Purple, Teal, Blue, Green, Yellow, Silver)

  • Multiplex chromogenic IHC panels

  • Tissue processing, embedding, and sectioning

  • Slide scanning for digital analysis


All IHC staining is performed using our state-of-the-art Ventana Benchmark platforms, delivering:


  • High reproducibility

  • Excellent signal-to-noise ratios

  • Clean background

  • Consistent turnaround times


This means you get the power of multiplex and colour—without the complexity and instability of fluorescence.

Please note: LabNexus provides histology services for research purposes only. We do not process diagnostic samples.

Conclusion


Both IHC and IF are valuable tools—but for most tissue research projects, chromogenic IHC is the smarter default choice.


It offers:

  • Permanent, archive-ready results

  • Easier interpretation and validation

  • Lower technical and financial burden

  • Robust multiplexing capability

  • Seamless integration with digital pathology


Whether you need classic DAB IHC, bright coloured stains, or multiplex panels, LabNexus can support your research with high-standard histology services and fast turnaround times.



References

  1. Bancroft, J.D., & Gamble, M. (2020). Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques (8th ed.). Elsevier.

  2. Abcam. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining guide.https://www.abcam.com/en-us/knowledge-center/immunohistochemistry/ihc-staining

  3. Abcam. Immunofluorescence (IF) staining overview.https://www.abcam.com/en-us/knowledge-center/immunofluorescence/if-staining

  4. Maiques, O. et al. (2022). Multiplex chromogenic immunohistochemistry to stain and analyse two markers in paraffin tissue sections. MethodsX, 9, 101788.

  5. Ramos-Vara, J.A. (2005). Technical aspects of immunohistochemistry. Veterinary Pathology, 42(4), 405–426.

 
 
 
bottom of page