Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11095070›Full record

ArticleThe Histochemical journal2000

Comparison of cryofixation and aldehyde fixation for plant actin immunocytochemistry: aldehydes do not destroy F-actin.

S Vitha, F Baluska, M Braun, J Samaj, D Volkmann, P W Barlow

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Histochemical journal, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

S VithaInstitute of Plant Molecular Biology, Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic, Ceské Budejovice.
F Baluska
M Braun
J Samaj
D Volkmann
P W Barlow
University of Bonn · DEInstitute of Plant Genetics and Biotechnology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences · SKSlovak Academy of Sciences · SKUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Nevada, Reno · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For walled plant cells, the immunolocalization of actin microfilaments, also known as F-actin, has proved to be much trickier than that of microtubules. These difficulties are commonly attributed to the high sensitivity of F-actin to aldehyde fixatives. Therefore, most plant studies have been accomplished using fluorescent phallotoxins in fresh tissues. Nevertheless, concerns regarding the questionable ability of phallotoxins to bind the whole complement of F-actin necessitate further optimization of actin immunofluorescence methods. We have compared two procedures: (1) formaldehyde fixation and (2) rapid freezing and freeze substitution (cryofixation), both followed by embedding in low-melting polyester wax. Actin immunofluorescence in sections of garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) root gave similar results with both methods. The compatibility of aldehydes with actin immunodetection was further confirmed by the freeze-shattering technique that does not require embedding after aldehyde fixation. It appears that rather than aldehyde fixation, some further steps in the procedures used for actin visualization are critical for preserving F-actin. Wax embedding, combined with formaldehyde fixation, has proved to be also suitable for the detection of a wide range of other antigens.

Indexed as

AldehydesCryopreservationPlant CellsActinsFluorescent Antibody TechniquePlantsTissue FixationActinsAldehydes

Identifiers

PMID11095070
OpenAlexW340112566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.