In histology and IHC, tissue adhesion and consistent staining are critical — and TOMO® slides deliver on both. Their hydrophilic, proprietary surface ensures samples stay put and reagents spread evenly, boosting reliability and reproducibility.
Designed for high-throughput labs, automated staining, and digital scanning, TOMO® slides are rapidly becoming the new benchmark, reducing failed runs and elevating overall workflow quality. Below, we explore how they outperform traditional slides and share real-world case studies demonstrating their impact.
Exceptional Tissue Adhesion — Even in Tough Conditions
One of the biggest frustrations in histology is tissue lifting or loss during staining, washing or heat-based antigen retrieval — especially in delicate or tricky tissues like bone, fatty sections or nails. TOMO’s hydrophilic adhesive surface holds tissue securely throughout these demanding steps.
Why it matters:
- Less tissue detachment → fewer repeated runs
- Higher slide success rates → more reliable diagnostics
Consistent, High-Quality Staining
The TOMO surface promotes uniform fluid distribution across the slide, which helps reagents spread evenly during staining reactions. That can improve staining quality and make slide interpretation more consistent.
Why it matters:
- Better image clarity → clearer pathology reads
- More reproducible results between slides
Optimised for Automated & Digital Workflows
Modern labs increasingly use automated IHC stainers and slide printers. TOMO slides are designed to integrate smoothly with these systems — including thermal transfer slide printers — because of their consistent, flat coating and surface properties.
Why it matters:
- Seamless automation → workflow efficiency boosts
- Reduced manual handling → fewer human errors
- Fits digital slide pipelines → easier scan/AI readiness
Less Waste, Better Throughput
Because slides perform better with difficult tissues and in automated workflows, labs can reduce wasted slides and rework. According to broader histology digitisation trends, lab automation and reliable consumables cut costs and speed turnaround times significantly.
Why it matters:
- Higher throughput → more samples processed per day
- Lower operating cost per case
Independent Review: Slide Adhesion Findings (Run 114)
The slide adhesion study in the UK NEQAS ICC & ISH Run 114 Journal was undertaken in response to reports of tissue lifting during immunohistochemistry. It involved multiple participating diagnostic laboratories and aimed to compare the real-world adhesion performance of different microscope slides under routine working conditions, with central assessment by UK NEQAS.
1. Purpose and Scope of the Study
The slide adhesion exercise in Run 114 was a comparative audit, not a controlled laboratory trial. Its purpose was to investigate reported issues of tissue lifting and loss during IHC by assessing how different slide types performed across real-world laboratory workflows.
Key points to note for interpretation:
-
Slides were tested in multiple laboratories, each using their own protocols.
-
Tissue types, section thickness, drying, and baking conditions varied.
-
Results therefore reflect practical robustness, not idealised conditions.
This makes the findings particularly relevant to routine diagnostic practice, but also means results should be interpreted comparatively rather than absolutely.
2. Slides Included in the Comparison
The study compared:
-
Histobond R (original UK NEQAS slide)
-
Histobond S (alternative hydrophilic slide)
-
TOMO slides (hydrophilic; tested both baked and unbaked)
Histobond R was used as the baseline comparator.
3. UK NEQAS–Assessed Slides (Central Assessment)
Table 1: NEQAS-Supplied Slides – Comparative Performance
| Slide Type | Same as Baseline | Poorer than Baseline | Better than Baseline | Tissue Lifting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histobond R (baseline) | — | — | — | 21% |
| Histobond S | 44% | 17% | 39% | 21% |
| TOMO (unbaked) | 19% | 6% | 75% | 16% |
| TOMO (baked) | 19% | 6% | 75% | 5% |
Independent Interpretation
-
TOMO slides were most frequently rated as better than the baseline, with three-quarters of cases showing improved adhesion scores.
-
Baked TOMO slides showed the lowest tissue lifting rate of all slides assessed.
-
Histobond S showed mixed performance, with improvement in some labs but no reduction in tissue lifting compared with the baseline.
From a central assessment perspective, TOMO slides performed best overall.
4. In-House (Participant-Prepared) Slides
Table 2: In-House Slides – Comparative Performance
| Slide Type | Same as Baseline | Poorer than Baseline | Better than Baseline | Tissue Lifting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histobond R | — | — | — | 42% |
| Histobond S | 58% | 26% | 16% | 32% |
| TOMO (unbaked) | 59% | 18% | 23% | 21% |
| TOMO (baked) | 54% | 23% | 23% | 21% |
Independent Interpretation
-
All in-house slides performed less well than centrally prepared slides, highlighting the impact of local handling.
-
TOMO slides again showed lower tissue lifting than Histobond R and Histobond S.
-
Performance differences were less pronounced than in the NEQAS-prepared slides, suggesting that laboratory practice strongly influences outcomes, regardless of slide type.
5. Overall Comparative Assessment
Table 3: Summary Ranking by Key Criteria
| Criterion | Best Performing Slide |
|---|---|
| Highest proportion of improved adhesion scores | TOMO (baked & unbaked) |
| Lowest tissue lifting (central assessment) | TOMO (baked) |
| Consistency across laboratories | TOMO |
| Sensitivity to local handling | All slides (not slide-specific) |
6. Independent Conclusions
From an objective standpoint:
-
TOMO slides performed best overall in this audit, particularly in centrally assessed samples.
-
Their hydrophilic surface chemistry appears to offer a genuine advantage in tissue retention, especially under more demanding staining conditions.
-
Baking further reduced tissue lifting but was not essential for TOMO slides to outperform the baseline.
-
Histobond S offered incremental improvement in some cases but did not consistently reduce tissue lifting.
-
Histobond R showed the highest susceptibility to tissue loss, especially in in-house use.
7. Important Caveats
-
This was not a controlled head-to-head laboratory study.
-
Results reflect real-world variability, which strengthens practical relevance but limits mechanistic conclusions.
-
Slide choice should still be validated locally, as workflow factors remain critical.
Bottom line (independent view):
Across multiple laboratories and conditions, TOMO slides demonstrated the most reliable adhesion performance and lowest tissue lifting, making them the strongest performer in this report — while the study also reinforces that handling and protocol consistency remain as important as slide choice.
Adhesion Slides
Adhesion Slides
Adhesion Slides
Adhesion Slides
Adhesion Slides