ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Optimizing tissue clearing and imaging methods for human brain tissue.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerated immunostaining of thick biological tissues using bidirectional electric fields with reversible deformation.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- 3D micro-CT and immunofluorescence-based characterization of Denonvilliers' fascia and its neurovascular structures.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quantitative optical coherence microscopy of neuron morphology in human entorhinal cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Seeing the Forest and Its Trees Together: Implementing 3D Light Microscopy Pipelines for Cell Type Mapping in the Mouse Brain.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify optimum sample conditions for human brains, we compared the clearing efficiency, antibody staining efficiency, and artifacts between fresh and cadaver samples.
methodsFresh and cadaver samples were cleared using X-CLARITY™. Clearing efficiency and artifact levels were calculated using ImageJ, and antibody staining efficiency was evaluated after confocal microscopy imaging. Three staining methods were compared: 4-day staining (4DS), 11-day staining (11DS), and 4-day staining with a commercial kit (4DS-C). The optimum staining method was then selected by evaluating staining time, depth, method complexity, contamination, and cost.
resultsFresh samples outperformed cadaver samples in terms of the time and quality of clearing, artifacts, and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) staining efficiency, but had a glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) staining efficiency that was similar to that of cadaver samples. The penetration depth and DAPI staining improved in fresh samples as the incubation period lengthened. 4DS-C was the best method, with the deepest penetration. Human brain images containing blood vessels, cell nuclei, and astrocytes were visualized three-dimensionally. The chemical dye staining depth reached 800 µm and immunostaining depth exceeded 200 µm in 4 days.
conclusionsWe present optimized sample preparation and staining protocols for the visualization of three-dimensional macrostructure in the human brain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.