ArticleMethods and protocols2022
Comparison of Different Fixation Methods for Combined Histological and Biomolecular Analysis of Fixed and Decalcified Bone Samples.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Spatial Transcriptomics in Bone.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of histological and biomolecular analyses provides deep understanding of different biological processes and is of high interest for basic and applied research. However, the available analytical methods are still limited, especially when considering bone samples. This study compared different fixation media to identify a sufficient analytical method for the combination of histological, immuno-histological and biomolecular analyses of the same fixed, processed and paraffin embedded bone sample. Bone core biopsies of rats' femurs were fixed in different media (RNAlater + formaldehyde (R + FFPE), methacarn (MFPE) or formaldehyde (FFPE)) for 1 week prior to decalcification by EDTA and further histological processing and paraffin embedding. Snap freezing (unfixed frozen tissue, UFT) and incubation in RNAlater were used as additional controls. After gaining the paraffin sections for histological and immunohistological analysis, the samples were deparaffined and RNA was isolated by a modified TRIZOL protocol. Subsequently, gene expression was evaluated using RT-qPCR. Comparable histo-morphological and immuno-histological results were evident in all paraffin embedded samples of MFPE, FFPE and R + FFPE. The isolated RNA in the group of MFPE showed a high concentration and high purity, which was comparable to the UFT and RNAlater groups. However, in the groups of FFPE and R + FFPE, the RNA quality and quantity were statistically significantly lower when compared to MFPE, UFT and RNAlater. RT-qPCR results showed a comparable outcome in the group of MFPE and UFT, whereas the groups of FFPE and R + FFPE did not result in a correctly amplified gene product. Sample fixation by means of methacarn is of high interest for clinical samples to allow a combination of histological, immunohistological and biomolecular analysis. The implementation of such evaluation method in clinical research may allow a deeper understanding of the processes of bone formation and regeneration.
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.