Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32946473›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Chemical effects of diceCT staining protocols on fluid-preserved avian specimens.

Catherine M Early, Ashley C Morhardt, Timothy P Cleland, Christopher M Milensky, Gwénaëlle M Kavich, Helen F James

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Buffered Lugol's Iodine Preserves DNA Fragment Lengths.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine M EarlyBiology Department, Science Museum of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0308-2710
Ashley C MorhardtDepartment of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Timothy P ClelandMuseum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9198-2828
Christopher M MilenskyDepartment of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Gwénaëlle M KavichMuseum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7706-1173
Helen F JamesDepartment of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Smithsonian Institution · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT) techniques allow visualization of soft tissues of fluid-preserved specimens in three dimensions without dissection or histology. Two popular diceCT stains, iodine-potassium iodide (I2KI) dissolved in water and elemental iodine (I2) dissolved in 100% ethanol (EtOH), yield striking results. Despite the widespread use of these stains in clinical and biological fields, the molecular mechanisms that result in color change and radiopacity attributed to iodine staining are poorly understood. Requests to apply these stains to anatomical specimens preserved in natural history museums are increasing, yet curators have little information about the potential for degradation of treated specimens. To assess the molecular effects of iodine staining on typical museum specimens, we compared the two popular stains and two relatively unexplored stains (I2KI in 70% EtOH, I2 in 70% EtOH). House sparrows (Passer domesticus) were collected and preserved under uniform conditions following standard museum protocols, and each was then subjected to one of the stains. Results show that the three ethanol-based stains worked equally well (producing fully stained, life-like, publication quality scans) but in different timeframes (five, six, or eight weeks). The specimen in I2KI in water became degraded in physical condition, including developing flexible, demineralized bones. The ethanol-based methods also resulted in some demineralization but less than the water-based stain. The pH of the water-based stain was notably acidic compared to the water used as solvent in the stain. Our molecular analyses indicate that whereas none of the stains resulted in unacceptable levels of protein degradation, the bones of a specimen stained with I2KI in water demineralized throughout the staining process. We conclude that staining with I2KI or elemental I2 in 70% EtOH can yield high-quality soft-tissue visualization in a timeframe that is similar to that of better-known iodine-based stains, with lower risk of negative impacts on specimen condition.

Indexed as

Staining and LabelingAnimalsBirdsContrast MediaIodineMuseumsPreservation, BiologicalX-Ray MicrotomographyContrast MediaIodine

Identifiers

PMID32946473
PMCPMC7500670
OpenAlexW3087130309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.