ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2024
Fluorescence microscopy shadow imaging for neuroscience.
Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A robotic patch-clamp system with real-time localization and phase-synchronized capture of dynamic in vivo cells using micropipette resistance modelling.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- Fluorescent Labeling Methods for Brain Structure Research.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescence microscopy remains one of the single most widely applied experimental approaches in neuroscience and beyond and is continuously evolving to make it easier and more versatile. The success of the approach is based on synergistic developments in imaging technologies and fluorophore labeling strategies that have allowed it to greatly diversify and be used across preparations for addressing structure as well as function. Yet, while targeted labeling strategies are a key strength of fluorescence microscopy, they reciprocally impose general limitations on the possible types of experiments and analyses. One recent development that overcomes some of these limitations is fluorescence microscopy shadow imaging, where membrane-bound cellular structures remain unlabeled while the surrounding extracellular space is made to fluoresce to provide a negative contrast shadow image. When based on super-resolution STED microscopy, the technique in effect provides a positive image of the extracellular space geometry and entire neuropil in the field of view. Other noteworthy advantages include the near elimination of the adverse effects of photobleaching and toxicity in live imaging, exhaustive and homogeneous labeling across the preparation, and the ability to apply and adjust the label intensity on the fly. Shadow imaging is gaining popularity and has been applied on its own or combined with conventional positive labeling to visualize cells and synaptic proteins in their parenchymal context. Here, we highlight the inherent limitations of fluorescence microscopy and conventional labeling and contrast these against the pros and cons of recent shadow imaging approaches. Our aim is to describe the brief history and current trajectory of the shadow imaging technique in the neuroscience field, and to draw attention to its ease of application and versatility.
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.