Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30778205›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2019

A practical guide to optimization in X10 expansion microscopy.

Sven Truckenbrodt, Christoph Sommer, Silvio O Rizzoli, Johann G Danzl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Years-long stability of X10 expansion microscopy hydrogels.Journal of biological engineering · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. ONE microscopy.Nature protocols · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Principles ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Sven TruckenbrodtInstitute of Neuro- and Sensory Physiology, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. sven.truckenbrodt@ist.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-3837
Christoph SommerInstitute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria.
Silvio O RizzoliInstitute of Neuro- and Sensory Physiology, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Johann G DanzlInstitute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF I 3600
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expansion microscopy is a relatively new approach to super-resolution imaging that uses expandable hydrogels to isotropically increase the physical distance between fluorophores in biological samples such as cell cultures or tissue slices. The classic gel recipe results in an expansion factor of ~4×, with a resolution of 60-80 nm. We have recently developed X10 microscopy, which uses a gel that achieves an expansion factor of ~10×, with a resolution of ~25 nm. Here, we provide a step-by-step protocol for X10 expansion microscopy. A typical experiment consists of seven sequential stages: (i) immunostaining, (ii) anchoring, (iii) polymerization, (iv) homogenization, (v) expansion, (vi) imaging, and (vii) validation. The protocol presented here includes recommendations for optimization, pitfalls and their solutions, and detailed guidelines that should increase reproducibility. Although our protocol focuses on X10 expansion microscopy, we detail which of these suggestions are also applicable to classic fourfold expansion microscopy. We exemplify our protocol using primary hippocampal neurons from rats, but our approach can be used with other primary cells or cultured cell lines of interest. This protocol will enable any researcher with basic experience in immunostainings and access to an epifluorescence microscope to perform super-resolution microscopy with X10. The procedure takes 3 d and requires ~5 h of actively handling the sample for labeling and expansion, and another ~3 h for imaging and analysis.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell Culture TechniquesDrosophilaImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyQuality ControlRats, WistarZebrafish

Identifiers

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.