Hubbry Logo
Tissue microarrayTissue microarrayMain
Open search
Tissue microarray
Community hub
Tissue microarray
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tissue microarray
Tissue microarray
Tissue microarray
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A Tissue MicroArray Block
0.6 mm core Tissue MicroArray Block
A Tissue MicroArray Section

Tissue microarrays (also TMAs) consist of paraffin blocks in which up to 1000[1] separate tissue cores are assembled in array fashion to allow multiplex histological analysis.

History

[edit]

The major limitations in molecular clinical analysis of tissues include the cumbersome nature of procedures, limited availability of diagnostic reagents and limited patient sample size. The technique of tissue microarray was developed to address these issues.

Multi-tissue blocks were first introduced by H. Battifora in 1986 with his so-called "multitumor (sausage) tissue block" and modified in 1990 with its improvement, "the checkerboard tissue block" . In 1998, J. Kononen and collaborators developed the current technique, which uses a novel sampling approach to produce tissues of regular size and shape that can be more densely and precisely arrayed.

Procedure

[edit]

In the tissue microarray technique, a hollow needle is used to remove tissue cores as small as 0.6 mm in diameter from regions of interest in paraffin-embedded tissues such as clinical biopsies or tumor samples. These tissue cores are then inserted in a recipient paraffin block in a precisely spaced, array pattern. Sections from this block are cut using a microtome, mounted on a microscope slide and then analyzed by any method of standard histological analysis. Each microarray block can be cut into 100 – 500 sections, which can be subjected to independent tests. Tests commonly employed in tissue microarray include immunohistochemistry, and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Tissue microarrays are particularly useful in analysis of cancer samples.

One variation is a Frozen tissue array.

Use in research

[edit]
Further information: FGED Society

The use of tissue microarrays in combination with immunohistochemistry has been a preferred method to study and validate cancer biomarkers in various defined cancer patient cohorts. The possibility to assemble a large number of representative cancer samples from a defined patient cohort that also has a corresponding clinical database, provides a powerful resource to study how different protein expression patterns correlate with different clinical parameters. Since patient samples are assembled into the same block, sections can be stained with the same protocol to avoid experimental variability and technical artefacts. Clinical cancer patient cohorts and corresponding tissue microarray sets have been used to study diagnostic, prognostic and treatment predictive cancer biomarkers in most forms of cancer, including lung, breast, colorectal and renal cell cancer.[2][3][4][5]

Immunohistochemistry combined with tissue microarrays has also been used with success in large scale efforts to create a map of protein expression on a more global scale.[6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tissue microarray

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Tissue microarray (TMA) is a high-throughput technique that enables the simultaneous molecular analysis of hundreds to thousands of tissue specimens by extracting small cylindrical cores (typically 0.6–2.0 mm in diameter) from paraffin-embedded donor blocks and arraying them into a single recipient paraffin block, from which thin sections are cut for uniform and examination on a . The methodology of TMA construction involves precise instruments, such as those developed by Beecher Instruments, to punch and transfer tissue cores into predefined coordinates in the recipient block, often tracked via computer files for and . This approach amplifies limited tissue samples up to 10,000-fold, allowing up to 1,000 cores per block and enabling over 200 sections per array for repeated analyses like (IHC), (FISH), and RNA in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH). Originating from earlier concepts like the "sausage block" method in and refined through array formats in 1987, the modern TMA was pioneered by Kononen et al. in 1998, revolutionizing tissue-based research by miniaturizing and standardizing workflows. Key advantages of TMAs include significant cost and time savings—for instance, analyzing tumors via TMA costs approximately $600 compared to $200,000 with traditional methods—while preserving original diagnostic blocks and ensuring experimental uniformity across samples. In clinical , TMAs facilitate the discovery and validation of diagnostic and prognostic markers, such as in progression or HER2 in breast tumors, and support in IHC protocols. Beyond cancer, applications extend to for studying brain tumors like gliomas and to for validating therapeutic targets from cell lines or animal models in human tissues. With over 150 publications by the early and ongoing evolution, TMAs remain a cornerstone for large-scale studies.

Overview

Definition

A tissue microarray (TMA) is a paraffin block produced by extracting cylindrical tissue cores, typically 0.6 to 2 mm in , from different paraffin-embedded donor blocks and re-embedding them in an arranged array format within a single recipient block, enabling simultaneous of multiple specimens on one slide. The fundamental components of a TMA include the donor blocks, which serve as the source of original tissue samples; the recipient block, a newly formed paraffin block that organizes the punched cores in a grid-like ; and the microarray slides, consisting of thin sections (usually 4-5 μm thick) sliced from the recipient block for subsequent and examination. The primary purpose of TMAs is to facilitate high-throughput molecular profiling of hundreds to thousands of tissue specimens in a single experiment, allowing researchers to identify potential biomarkers, validate molecular hypotheses, and investigate heterogeneity across large cohorts. This technique embodies a approach inspired by technology, adapting high-density sampling principles from to enable efficient, standardized histological and immunohistochemical analyses.

Core principles

Tissue microarray (TMA) technology is founded on the principle of representative tissue sampling, where small cylindrical core biopsies are extracted from donor blocks of paraffin-embedded tissues to capture essential architectural features of tumors or normal tissues. These cores, typically 0.6 mm in for high-density arrays, provide a surface area equivalent to 2-3 high-power microscopic fields, balancing the need for tissue representativeness with the capacity to include hundreds of samples per array. Studies have demonstrated that a single 0.6 mm core can reliably reflect the molecular characteristics of larger whole-tissue sections for many biomarkers, enabling efficient analysis without compromising diagnostic accuracy. A key advantage of TMAs lies in their ability to standardize experimental conditions across multiple samples, minimizing inter-slide variability inherent in traditional whole-section analyses. By embedding all cores into a single recipient block, subsequent sections from the TMA undergo identical , hybridization, or other assays under uniform conditions, facilitating reproducible results and direct comparisons between specimens. This standardization is particularly valuable in and , where it reduces technical artifacts and enhances the reliability of expression profiling. TMAs enable high-throughput analysis by allowing parallel interrogation of 100 to over 1,000 tissue samples on a single , dramatically increasing efficiency in . This mechanism conserves limited archival tissues and reagents, as one TMA block can yield up to 200 sections for repeated assays, effectively amplifying scarce samples by thousands-fold without depleting original blocks needed for clinical purposes. The approach supports rapid screening of hundreds of molecular targets across large cohorts, accelerating discovery and validation in research settings. From an ethical and practical standpoint, TMAs predominantly utilize archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues from routine , which are stable for long-term storage and compatible with standard molecular techniques. This use complies with approvals and protocols for research, ensuring patient autonomy and data confidentiality while maximizing the utility of existing biobanks without requiring fresh tissue procurement. Such practices align with guidelines for secondary use of human specimens, promoting resource-efficient studies while upholding ethical standards.

History

Origins and early development

The concept of tissue microarrays (TMAs) emerged in the late , drawing inspiration from the rapid advancements in technology during the 1990s, which enabled high-throughput analysis of patterns. Earlier precursors in included manual multi-tissue blocks, first described by Hector Battifora in 1986 as the "multitumor (sausage) tissue block," a method that embedded numerous tissue samples into a single paraffin block to facilitate immunohistochemical testing across multiple specimens. This approach was refined in 1987 by Wan et al., who developed an array format using a technique to embed multiple cylindrical tissue samples into a single block for simultaneous analysis. These early techniques addressed the need for efficient comparison of tissue reactions but were limited by labor-intensive preparation and inconsistent sample representation. In the mid-1990s, researchers Juha Kononen and Olli Kallioniemi, working at the (NHGRI), began developing a more systematic approach to arraying tissue samples, motivated by the desire to validate genomic data from DNA microarrays on actual tissue contexts. Their work built on the principles of miniaturization and multiplexing from , adapting them to preserve tissue architecture for analysis. This foundational effort culminated in the creation of a precise punching and arraying system that allowed hundreds of tissue cores to be organized in a grid-like format within a recipient block. The formal introduction of TMAs occurred with the 1998 publication by Kononen et al. in , which described the technique's application to high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens, particularly for and copy number analysis in tissues. In this seminal study, the authors demonstrated how TMAs could analyze over 600 samples on a single slide, providing a efficient means to confirm microarray-identified candidates in clinical samples. This innovation directly tackled the initial challenge of scaling up tissue-based validation for the burgeoning field of , where traditional methods were too slow and resource-intensive for large cohorts.

Key milestones and widespread adoption

Following the initial description of tissue microarray (TMA) technology in , commercialization accelerated its accessibility. In the early , Beecher Instruments introduced manual punchers, enabling laboratories to construct TMAs with 0.6 mm diameter cores at spacings of 0.7-0.8 mm, which standardized the process and reduced reliance on custom fabrication. By 2005, semi-automated arrayers, such as the Kononen tissue arrayer, emerged, incorporating computer for improved precision and throughput in core placement. TMA adoption expanded within major cancer research consortia during the 2000s, facilitating large-scale biomarker validation. It was integrated into initiatives like (TCGA), launched in 2006, where TMAs complemented genomic data by enabling high-throughput immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression across hundreds of tumor samples to identify prognostic markers. This synergy supported pan-cancer studies, allowing correlation of molecular alterations with tissue-level phenotypes in cohorts exceeding 10,000 cases. Technological advancements in the shifted toward full automation, with systems like the TMA Grand Master enabling construction of high-density blocks (up to approximately 500 cores) through robotic precision and software-guided mapping. This evolution also introduced 3D TMAs, involving stacked multi-layer arrays to capture spatial tissue architecture beyond traditional 2D sections, enhancing analysis of heterogeneous tumors. Higher core densities, reaching 2,500 per block with 0.3 mm diameters, became feasible, supporting denser sampling without compromising integrity. By the 2020s, TMA integrated with and AI for precision medicine applications. Whole-slide imaging of TMA sections, combined with AI algorithms, automated scoring of biomarkers like Ki-67 expression, reducing inter-observer variability and enabling rapid analysis of thousands of cores. In research, TMAs facilitated studies of pulmonary pathology, such as SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution in tissues, informing targeted therapies and development. These developments underscore TMA's role in accelerating personalized diagnostics up to 2025.

Construction procedure

Sample selection and donor block preparation

The construction of a tissue microarray (TMA) begins with meticulous sample selection from donor blocks, typically formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) archival tissues derived from biopsies or surgical resections. These donor blocks must contain sufficient material, with a minimum depth of 2-3 mm to allow for multiple core extractions without depleting the sample, ensuring long-term usability for future studies. Pathological documentation, including patient demographics and anonymized , accompanies each block to maintain ethical standards and enable correlation with outcomes, while adhering to protocols for privacy. Criteria for sample selection emphasize representative regions that reflect the disease , prioritizing areas with high tumor content—ideally exceeding 70% viable tumor cells—to maximize analytical sensitivity. Necrotic, fibrotic, or artifactual zones are deliberately avoided during selection, as they can introduce variability and compromise downstream molecular analyses. A pathologist conducts a preliminary histological review of hematoxylin and (H&E)-stained sections from the donor block to confirm the , assess tumor representation, and delineate target areas with a marker, ensuring the selected regions align with the study's objectives, such as evaluating tumor heterogeneity or normal-adjacent tissue. Preparation of the donor block involves aligning the marked H&E slide with the corresponding paraffin block under a stereomicroscope to precisely locate the target areas for coring. If the existing H&E slide does not accurately represent the block's current face—due to prior sectioning—a fresh section is cut and stained to update the map. For special cases like frozen tissues or non-paraffin-fixed samples, additional fixation steps may be required to standardize , though FFPE remains the standard for archival stability. To address intratumor heterogeneity, 1-3 cores are typically harvested per donor sample, with replicates enhancing representativeness without over-sampling limited material. This approach, pioneered in early TMA methodologies, balances efficiency with reliability in high-throughput profiling.

Arraying process and recipient block creation

The arraying process in tissue microarray construction begins with the extraction of cylindrical tissue cores, known as core biopsies (TCBs), from paraffin-embedded donor blocks using precision punching instruments. These cores, typically ranging from 0.6 to 2.0 mm in diameter, are obtained by aligning a hollow needle punch over morphologically representative areas marked on the donor block surface, often guided by microscopic visualization to ensure accuracy. The seminal manual precision punch system, introduced by Beecher Instruments, employs two coaxial punches: a larger donor punch to extract the core and a smaller recipient punch to transfer it, minimizing tissue distortion and enabling cores up to 3-5 mm in length for uniform sectioning. Array design is critical for efficient high-throughput analysis, involving the organized placement of cores into predefined grid layouts within the recipient block to facilitate subsequent and . Common configurations include rectangular grids from 5x5 to 50x50 cores, with inter-core spacing of 0.5-1 mm to prevent cross-contamination during sectioning and extraction; denser patterns can accommodate over 2,500 cores in advanced setups. To ensure quality and orientation, arrays incorporate control cores, such as those from normal tissues or cell lines, positioned at standardized coordinates like the corners or periphery, allowing for validation of staining consistency across the block. Recipient block fabrication involves assembling the extracted cores into a stable paraffin matrix, typically using preformed molding trays or custom arrayers to create a unified block suitable for sectioning. Cores are inserted vertically into pre-drilled or molded holes in a softened paraffin recipient block, with careful orientation to maintain consistent depth and alignment for parallel cutting; the block is then reheated at approximately 60-65°C and compressed to secure without displacing tissues. This process, often facilitated by molds with pinning systems for hole formation, results in a compact block measuring 2-4 cm in , capable of holding hundreds of cores while preserving morphological integrity. Automation in the arraying process has evolved from manual methods, which offer low throughput but high control, to semi-automated and fully robotic systems for enhanced in large-scale studies. Manual arrayers like the Beecher MTA-1, prevalent in early implementations, rely on operator-guided punching for small arrays of up to 100 cores. By the mid-2000s, semi-automated computer numerical control (CNC) systems introduced motorized stages and digital mapping for mid-density arrays, while fully robotic platforms, such as the TMA Grand Master developed in the 2010s, integrate automated drilling, core extraction via pressurized air, and precise placement for high-density blocks exceeding 1,000 cores with sub-millimeter accuracy.

Sectioning, storage, and quality control

The sectioning of a tissue microarray (TMA) recipient block is performed using a to generate thin sections, typically 4-5 μm in thickness, which allows for high-resolution while preserving tissue morphology. These sections are floated on a water bath maintained at 40-45°C to flatten them and then mounted onto positively charged or adhesive-coated slides to ensure adherence and minimize tissue detachment. A single TMA block can yield multiple serial sections from various levels, often 50-100 or more, enabling repeated analyses without depleting the block. TMA paraffin blocks are stable for long-term storage at , remaining viable for years without significant degradation of tissue integrity. In contrast, mounted sections on slides require controlled conditions to prevent loss, particularly for downstream ; optimal storage is at 4°C or -20°C in a desiccated or vacuum-sealed environment, where immunoreactivity can be preserved for 3-24 months depending on the . Improper storage, such as prolonged exposure at , can lead to reduced detection over time. Quality control begins immediately post-sectioning with hematoxylin and (H&E) staining of select sections (e.g., at levels 15 and 30) to confirm core retention, alignment, and morphological , with acceptable loss rates typically under 5%. Detailed array maps are documented to correspond core positions with donor samples, facilitating tracking and interpretation. Additional validation may involve on control sections to assess protein and quality preservation. Common issues like core loss during sectioning, often due to fatty or soft tissues, are addressed through coatings on slides, sufficient block cooling prior to cutting, or adjusted angles to enhance adhesion and reduce detachment.

Applications

In biomedical research

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) have revolutionized screening in biomedical research by enabling high-throughput testing of antibodies or probes across large cohorts of tissue samples, often numbering in the hundreds, to assess protein expression patterns. This approach allows researchers to validate potential biomarkers, such as oncogenes, in a cost-effective and rapid manner, using on a single slide containing multiple cores from donor blocks. For instance, TMAs have been instrumental in screening for diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in , facilitating the shift toward molecular profiling of diseases. In studies of heterogeneity, TMAs support the of spatial variations within tumors through multi-core designs that sample different regions of the same specimen, providing insights into subtype diversity and intratumoral differences. In research, for example, TMAs constructed with multiple 0.6-mm cores per case have been used to profile protein expression with markers like ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67, revealing heterogeneous molecular subtypes and their prognostic implications via . Such designs help quantify heterogeneity, with findings showing that up to 34% of breast cancers exhibit multiple molecular subtypes when cores are taken from various tumor foci. TMAs contribute to large-scale projects by integrating proteomic data with genomic datasets, such as those from (TCGA), to explore correlations between molecular alterations and disease outcomes. In pan-cancer analyses, TMAs have been compared to TCGA RNA-seq data to validate patterns, demonstrating similarities in cancer type characteristics and aiding in the identification of proteomic signatures not captured by alone. Additionally, predictive TMAs have been employed in to test markers for drug response, correlating protein expression with therapeutic sensitivity in diverse patient cohorts. Notable research examples illustrate TMA's impact: in the 2000s, TMAs validated HER2 amplification as a prognostic marker in cohorts exceeding 500 samples, influencing development. More recently, in the 2020s, AI-integrated TMAs have enhanced single-cell-like resolution in , such as using automated phenotyping tools like HALO AI on TMA cores to delineate immune cell populations (e.g., T cells, B cells) and their associations with tumor aggression in . These advancements underscore TMAs' role in bridging with translational applications.

In clinical pathology and diagnostics

In , tissue microarrays (TMAs) facilitate the routine assessment of prognostic markers in tumor banks, enabling correlations between expression and patient survival outcomes. For instance, TMAs constructed from specimens allow high-throughput evaluation of the Ki-67 proliferation index, where high expression levels have been associated with poorer disease-free survival in (DLBCL) and (MCL). This approach supports prognostic stratification in clinical settings by analyzing archived tissues from large cohorts, preserving valuable samples while providing reproducible data for outcome prediction. TMAs also play a key role in companion diagnostics, particularly for targeted therapies such as in HER2-positive . By enabling standardized immunohistochemical (IHC) and (FISH) analysis across multiple samples, TMAs validate HER2 status with high concordance to whole-section testing, aiding eligibility determination for HER2-directed treatments. Interlaboratory validation studies using TMAs have confirmed their reliability for HER2 assessment, supporting consistent diagnostic workflows in labs. Integration of TMAs into hospital workflows enhances retrospective studies on treatment outcomes, allowing efficient analysis of archived paraffin blocks from clinical archives. In digital pathology environments, virtual TMAs generated from whole-slide images post-2015 streamline this process by enabling image-guided coring and automated without physical block manipulation. For example, AI-assisted digital workflows overlay annotations on scanned donor blocks to facilitate high-throughput IHC studies in large patient cohorts. Clinical applications of TMAs extend to validating PD-L1 expression for immunotherapy eligibility, where standardized TMAs help harmonize IHC scoring across assays to predict response in non-small cell (NSCLC) and other solid tumors. Additionally, multi-institutional TMA consortia address challenges in rare diseases by pooling limited tissue samples from diverse centers, enabling collaborative prognostic and diagnostic analyses for understudied cancers. This federated approach maximizes sample utility in resource-scarce scenarios, such as orphan diseases.

Analysis techniques

Immunohistochemistry and protein analysis

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) on tissue microarrays (TMAs) enables high-throughput detection of protein expression and localization within multiple tissue cores on a single slide, preserving spatial context while minimizing reagent use. The process begins with antigen retrieval to unmask s masked by formalin fixation, typically employing heat-induced retrieval (HIER) in a pressure boiler at 125°C for 4 minutes in a pH 6 buffer, followed by cooling to 90°C, or enzymatic digestion with for sensitive antigens. Primary antibodies are then incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature on automated stainers to ensure consistency across the array, with dilutions optimized (e.g., 1:50 to 1:200) based on preliminary tests to balance . Detection follows using a horseradish peroxidase-polymer conjugate for 30 minutes, yielding chromogenic visualization via diaminobenzidine (DAB) substrate for 10 minutes to produce brown precipitates at sites, completed by counterstaining with Mayer's hematoxylin for 5 minutes to highlight nuclei. Optimization for TMAs addresses challenges of heterogeneous core sizes and densities, employing automated platforms like the Ventana Benchmark to achieve uniform reagent distribution and reduce variability between cores. up to 2-3 markers per slide is feasible through sequential staining with tyramide signal amplification or fluorescent conjugates, allowing simultaneous assessment of related proteins (e.g., combining cytoplasmic and nuclear markers) while avoiding via careful selection and wash steps. Quantification of IHC staining on TMAs combines manual and digital methods for reproducible protein expression scoring. Manual evaluation often uses the H-score, calculated as the sum of (intensity score × percentage of stained cells), where intensity ranges from 0 (none) to 3 (strong) and percentage from 0-100%, yielding values from 0-300 to capture both distribution and intensity. For objectivity, digital image analysis software such as Aperio XT scans slides at 20× magnification, applying algorithms to segment stained areas, quantify DAB intensity, and generate automated H-scores or positivity thresholds, minimizing inter-observer bias in large cohorts. In cancer applications, TMA IHC facilitates protein profiling, such as determining estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status in breast cancer, where positivity (≥1% of tumor nuclei showing positive staining) guides endocrine therapy decisions and is associated with improved prognosis. Troubleshooting common artifacts, like uneven staining due to fixation artifacts in central tumor regions, can be mitigated by sampling cores from the periphery of donor blocks for improved fixative exposure and verifying with control stains such as vimentin, along with post-staining verification to ensure representative results.

Molecular and genetic assays

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) enable high-throughput (FISH) for detecting amplifications and chromosomal abnormalities in nucleic acids, with probes targeting specific loci such as HER2 alongside centromeric controls like CEP17 to quantify copy numbers. In , positivity is defined by a HER2/CEP17 ratio greater than 2.0, assessed by enumerating fluorescent signals within each TMA core to evaluate amplification status across hundreds of samples simultaneously. This approach has demonstrated high concordance with traditional FISH on whole sections, making TMAs a reliable tool for validating in HER2 status. RNA in situ hybridization (ISH) on TMAs facilitates the visualization of mRNA expression patterns, particularly for viral transcripts, using technologies like branched DNA amplification to enhance signal detection in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. For instance, in head and neck cancers, RNA ISH probes target high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA, confirming transcriptionally active infection and correlating with p16 overexpression for improved diagnostic accuracy. This method preserves spatial context, allowing multiplexed analysis on TMA sections to assess oncogene expression across tumor cohorts. Beyond in situ methods, TMAs support molecular assays like (PCR) by punching individual cores for and mutation analysis, enabling targeted genotyping of hotspots such as in colorectal cancers. Emerging integrations with next-generation sequencing (NGS) involve laser microdissection of TMA sections to isolate pure cell populations, followed by library preparation for genomic profiling, which has shown feasibility in yielding sufficient nucleic acids for variant detection despite small sample sizes. Key challenges in these assays include DNA and RNA degradation in FFPE tissues due to formalin-induced cross-linking, which can fragment nucleic acids and reduce yield, necessitating optimized extraction protocols for dual recovery. Adaptations such as whole-slide imaging of TMA sections address this by enabling automated, high-content genetic screening through digital quantification of signals, improving throughput and reproducibility in large-scale studies.

Emerging techniques

As of 2025, advances in TMA analysis include (AI) for automated cell annotation and classification on H&E-stained sections, enhancing resolution in workflows. Generative AI tools enable virtual of IHC images, simulating multi-marker staining from single channels to accelerate discovery. Additionally, Microarray Integrated (MIST) combines TMAs with spatial omics platforms like Visium for affordable, high-resolution transcriptomic mapping of tissue architecture.

Advantages and limitations

Key advantages

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) enable the simultaneous of hundreds to thousands of tissue samples on a single slide, dramatically increasing throughput compared to traditional methods that require individual processing of whole tissue sections. This high-throughput capability allows for the evaluation of up to 1,000 specimens in one experiment, facilitating large-scale validation studies that would otherwise demand extensive time and resources. For instance, assessment across thousands of cases can be completed in weeks rather than months, as consecutive sections from a TMA block support parallel testing of multiple molecular markers under uniform conditions. In addition to efficiency gains, TMAs offer substantial cost and resource savings by minimizing tissue and consumption. Each core biopsy typically represents only a fraction—approximately 1/1,000th—of the material used in conventional whole-section , making TMAs particularly valuable for studying rare or precious archival samples. usage is similarly reduced; for example, immunohistochemical of 10,000 tumor sections via TMA costs around $600, versus $200,000 for equivalent whole-section processing, due to the need for only microliters of antibodies and probes per slide. This efficiency extends to labor, as fewer personnel and slides are required, further lowering overall expenses in high-volume research. TMAs promote standardization and reproducibility by subjecting all arrayed samples to identical experimental conditions, such as retrieval, incubation times, and protocols, which minimizes technical variability inherent in processing disparate slides. This uniformity supports reliable meta-analyses and multicenter collaborations, as results from different studies can be more directly compared when derived from consistently handled cohorts. The inclusion of built-in positive and negative controls on the further enhances reliability across experiments. Finally, the TMA technique preserves donor blocks through non-destructive sampling, as the small-diameter cores (typically 0.6 mm) extract minimal tissue, leaving the original archival material intact for future diagnostic or longitudinal studies. This approach amplifies limited resources up to 10,000-fold, enabling hundreds of thousands of molecular assays from a single paraffin-embedded block without compromising its integrity.

Principal limitations and challenges

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) are susceptible to sampling bias due to the small size of tissue cores, typically 0.6 mm in diameter, which may fail to capture intratumoral heterogeneity prevalent in many cancers. For instance, in heterogeneous melanomas or ovarian tumors, a single core can lead to false negatives by missing regions of varying biomarker expression, such as Ki-67 proliferation index showing differences in high expression rates of about 6.5% between TMA and whole sections (90.5% vs. 84%) in epithelial ovarian cancer. To mitigate this, using multiple cores (e.g., 2–4 per specimen) has been recommended, though optimal numbers vary by tumor type and antigen. Technical artifacts further compromise TMA reliability, including core loss during sectioning, which can affect up to 10% of cores in fatty or heterogeneous tissues, and issues like sectioning wrinkles or uneven at array edges due to variable tissue . In one study of epithelial , missing cores impacted 8.6% of 1026 total cores, with rates reaching 9.6% for certain markers, potentially biasing results toward over- or under-representation of certain markers. These artifacts are exacerbated in frozen TMAs, where tissue brittleness increases loss rates to 5–33%, necessitating strategies like larger core diameters (e.g., 1 mm) or improved techniques. TMAs have inherent applicability limits, as they are unsuitable for studies requiring preservation of whole-tissue , such as vascular patterns or spatial relationships in organs like the liver, where full evaluation is essential. Additionally, TMAs primarily utilize fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, limiting their use for applications needing viable cells or fresh samples, and they may lose prognostic significance in multivariate analyses compared to whole sections for certain antigens. In the 2020s, emerging challenges include for achieving single-cell resolution, as traditional TMA cores contain hundreds to thousands of cells per spot, averaging molecular signals and hindering direct integration with high-throughput platforms that target 1–10 cells per spot, alongside ethical concerns in large biobanks such as obtaining broad consent for future uses and ensuring data privacy amid genomic linkages. Solutions like multi-level sectioning for replicates and 3D-printed TMA blocks accommodating up to 16 cores per slide address tissue loss and heterogeneity, though custom protocols are required for compatibility with platforms like 10X Visium. Ethical guidelines from initiatives like the NCI emphasize governance and confidentiality to support sustainable biobanking for TMA applications.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2813639/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1187321/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6147943/
  4. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0798-844
  5. https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article-abstract/58/12/1717/5620818
  6. https://mp.bmj.com/content/56/4/198
  7. https://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/2010/009-2010-ijcri/001-09-2010-singh/ijcri-00109201011-singh-full-text.php
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2292098/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6991121/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7457565/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5268085/
  12. https://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/2010/009-2010-ijcri/001-09-2010-singh/ijcri-00109201011-singh.pdf
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3525985/
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3301404/
  15. https://diagnosticpathology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-1596-8-9
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/tissue-microarray
  17. https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/10/7/657/558542
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9662379/
  19. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Tissue-microarrays-for-high-throughput-molecular-of-Kononen-Bubendorf/b7fc7fbbc8b7d932379b56c45e30c67b658914db
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5003444/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36137139/
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2764
  23. https://www.3dhistech.com/solutions/tissue-microarray/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8343478/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11678066/
  26. https://karger.com/res/article/101/6/610/829152/Systematic-Investigation-of-SARS-CoV-2-Receptor
  27. https://labs.pathology.jhu.edu/otis-tmalab/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2023/09/TMA-considerations.pdf
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6813869/
  29. https://www.acsr1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Tech011_SOP-Tissue_Microarray_Construction_Protocol_Revised-June12-2018.pdf
  30. https://www.laboratoryinvestigation.org/article/S0023-6837%2822%2903325-6/fulltext
  31. https://blog.crownbio.com/tumor-tissue-microarrays-cancer-research
  32. https://www.medicina.ulisboa.pt/wp-content/uploads/Practical_Methods_for_Tissue_Microarray_Constructi.pdf
  33. https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/18/1/28/282509/Sampling-Strategies-for-Tissue-Microarrays-to
  34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003444/
  35. https://tmaj.pathology.jhmi.edu/doc/manual/TMA_Basics.html
  36. https://www.jpatholtm.org/journal/view.php?number=3118
  37. https://www.3dhistech.com/microarrayers/tma-grand-master/
  38. https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/754013_Rev0808.pdf
  39. https://academic.oup.com/ajcp/article/148/5/380/4587598
  40. https://www.tissuearray.com/FAQs
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3995437/
  42. https://diagnosticpathology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-1596-1-14
  43. https://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/19288/68591_CE%5BRa1%5D_F%28IS%29_QC_REF_PAT%28SD_IS%29_PF1%28AKA_DK_OM%29_PFA%28AKA_KM%29_PN%28KM%29.pdf
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263031512_Loss_of_samples_in_the_tissue_microarray_technique_Comparison_between_slides_using_adhesive_tape_and_silanized_slides
  45. https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article/10/18/6143/281682/Hierarchical-Clustering-Analysis-of-Tissue
  46. https://breast-cancer-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13058-025-02038-1
  47. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274140
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3636688/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023683725000017
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3995999/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1602255/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4011712/
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17292562/
  54. https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/36/9/4661
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15509672/
  56. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22924-4
  57. https://pathsocjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cjp2.62
  58. https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/6/96
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6920558/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395222008584
  61. https://www.arraysbank.com/blog/rare-cancer-tissue-microarrays-catalyzing-discovery-through-federated-biobanking-and-virtual-cores/
  62. https://doi.org/10.3791/3620
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4810438/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11141889/
  65. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.19.02309
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2664171/
  67. https://www.modernpathology.org/article/S0893-3952%2822%2904735-4/fulltext
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395222016167
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23060353/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7362547/
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003996920301242
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4996394/
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55146-2
  74. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08837-6
  75. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201714
  76. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61349-1
  77. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00889-5
  78. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-024-00462-1
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2741654/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3436208/
  81. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3905/3/2/91
  82. https://dctd.cancer.gov/research/research-areas/biobanking-biospecimen-science/elsi
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.