Processing Neonatal Mouse Brains for Immunohistochemical Analysis: As Required for Including Spindle Orientation Analysis and Analysis of DNA Damage and Apoptosis.

Gabriela De la Cruz, Nana Nikolaishvili-Feinberg, Scott E Williams, Timothy R Gershon

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Gabriela De la CruzDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Nana Nikolaishvili-FeinbergDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Scott E WilliamsDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Timothy R GershonLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. gershont@neurology.unc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analyzing sections of neonatal mouse brain using immunohistochemistry can inform microcephaly pathogenesis, but obtaining and staining high-quality sections can be challenging. The neonatal brain shows less structural integrity than the adult brain. As a result, embedding technique must be optimized to allow sections without cracks or other anatomic disruptions. Moreover, paraffin embedding, which maximized tissue preservation, can reduce antigenicity of proteins in the embedded tissues. We describe an optimized embedding technique and antigen recovery technique that allows successful sectioning and immunohistochemical staining.

Indexed as

BrainDNA DamageAnimalsAnimals, NewbornApoptosisMiceParaffin EmbeddingCerebellumGranule cellsHippocampusMicrocephalyNeural progenitorPostnatal neurogenesisSubventricular zone

Identifiers

PMID36418724

DOI10.1007/978-1-61779-111-6_2

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.