ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2024
A comparison of confocal and epifluorescence microscopy for quantification of RNAScope and immunohistochemistry fluorescent images.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Biophysics at the Membrane with Single-Molecule TIRF Microscopy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Optical Imaging of Cilia in the Head and Neck.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantification of RNA expression and protein production in fluorescent stainings provides critical information concerning neurodevelopment. A trustable independent quantification technique requires acquisition of reliable images prior to image processing. There is uncertainty in existing literature regarding the use of confocal microscopy compared to standard epifluorescence microscopy, especially in the context of RNA in situ hybridization protocols. NEW
methodThe hindbrains of developing rat embryos from embryologic day 14 (E14) to E20 were sectioned and stained for expression of Hoxb1, Hoxb2, and Phox2b using both RNAScope and immunohistochemistry. Islet1 was used for identification of hindbrain motoneuron cell bodies. Slides were imaged using both confocal and epifluorescence microscopy.
resultsExpression patterns of both mRNA and protein were similar in both imaging modalities. Analyses of Hoxb1 and Hoxb2 mRNA expression were particularly concordant between-scopes, with similar p-values and posthoc differences between timepoints. Confocal imaging of Hoxb2 protein yielded a significant peak at E18, but this level of significance was not reached using epifluorescence microscopy. Although similar trends were observed, only Phox2b RNAScope results were statistically significant when analyzed with confocal microscopy. In contrast, Phox2b immunostaining analyses showed significant differences using both microscopes. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsResearchers may save time and financial resources if epifluorescence microscopy provides comparable or equal results as confocal.
conclusionsEpifluorescence microscopy appears sufficient for quantification of RNAScope experiments with relatively low puncta per cell, while confocal microscopy gives clearer definition to immunohistochemical protein relationships and may be preferable especially in targets with low protein production.
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.