Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24258967›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2014

Out with the old and in with the new: rapid specimen preparation procedures for electron microscopy of sectioned biological material.

Kent L McDonald

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Volume electron microscopy.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. TheJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kent L McDonaldElectron Microscope Laboratory, University of California, 26 Giannini Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA, klm@berkeley.edu.
University of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents the best current practices for preparation of biological samples for examination as thin sections in an electron microscope. The historical development of fixation, dehydration, and embedding procedures for biological materials are reviewed for both conventional and low temperature methods. Conventional procedures for processing cells and tissues are usually done over days and often produce distortions, extractions, and other artifacts that are not acceptable for today's structural biology standards. High-pressure freezing and freeze substitution can minimize some of these artifacts. New methods that reduce the times for freeze substitution and resin embedding to a few hours are discussed as well as a new rapid room temperature method for preparing cells for on-section immunolabeling without the use of aldehyde fixatives.

Indexed as

AnimalsCryopreservationFreeze SubstitutionImmunohistochemistryMiceMicroscopy, ElectronMicrotomyTissue Fixation

Identifiers

PMID24258967
OpenAlexW1964830214

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.