{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018604651162790697, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.481927710843373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
IMMUNOPEROXIDASE STUDIES OF SKIN DISEASE

.The value of immunohistological investigations in the diagnosis and assessment of skin diseases is now well established. For the most part these techniques depend upon the use of fluorescently labelled antibodies to different classes of immunoglobulin and to complement components. In recent years, however, several groups have described dermatological studies based upon the use of antibodies labeled, not with fluoreseein, but with the enzyme peroxidase. Readers of these reports may be puzzled by the introduction of this new label and wonder what benefits, if any, are offered by immunoperoxidase techniques. In this review I will attempt to put the two models in relative perspective.* On the face of it, peroxidase appears an unnecessarily cumbersome antibody label when compared to fluorescent markers. Fluorescent markers can be revealed literally "at the flick of a switch" under the fluorescent microscope, whereas peroxidase is only demonstrable after development of a histochemical reaction. Furthermore, the term enzyme