Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277998›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021

Superresolving the kidney-a practical comparison of fluorescence nanoscopy of the glomerular filtration barrier.

Lucia C S Wunderlich, Florian Ströhl, Stefan Ströhl, Oliver Vanderpoorten, Luca Mascheroni, Clemens F Kaminski

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Lucia C S Wunderlich *Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK.
Florian Ströhl *Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK.
Stefan StröhlDepartment of Nephrology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Oliver VanderpoortenDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK.
Luca MascheroniDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK.
Clemens F KaminskiDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK. cfk23@cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council G0902243Medical Research Council MR/K015850/1Medical Research Council MR/K02292X/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 3-3249/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunofluorescence microscopy is routinely used in the diagnosis of and research on renal impairments. However, this highly specific technique is restricted in its maximum resolution to about 250 nm in the lateral and 700 nm in the axial directions and thus not sufficient to investigate the fine subcellular structure of the kidney's glomerular filtration barrier. In contrast, electron microscopy offers high resolution, but this comes at the cost of poor preservation of immunogenic epitopes and antibody penetration alongside a low throughput. Many of these drawbacks were overcome with the advent of super-resolution microscopy methods. So far, four different super-resolution approaches have been used to study the kidney: single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM), stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy, structured illumination microscopy (SIM), and expansion microscopy (ExM), however, using different preservation methods and widely varying labelling strategies. In this work, all four methods were applied and critically compared on kidney slices obtained from samples treated with the most commonly used preservation technique: fixation by formalin and embedding in paraffin (FFPE). Strengths and weaknesses, as well as the practicalities of each method, are discussed to enable users of super-resolution microscopy in renal research make an informed decision on the best choice of technique. The methods discussed enable the efficient investigation of biopsies stored in kidney banks around the world. Graphical abstract.

Indexed as

AnimalsGlomerular Filtration BarrierHumansKidneyMembrane ProteinsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMicroscopy, FluorescenceParaffin EmbeddingPodocytesSingle Molecule ImagingTissue FixationMembrane ProteinsnephrinFluorescence microscopyFormalin-fixed paraffin-embeddedKidneyNephrinPodocyte foot processesSuper-resolution microscopy

Identifiers

PMID33277998
PMCPMC7813708
OpenAlexW3107935094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.