ArticleScientific reports2025
Qualitative comparison of decalcifiers for mouse bone cryosections for subsequent biophotonic analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Detrimental effect of metal contaminants on forensic DNA analysis and strategies for mitigation.International journal of legal medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone tissue, with its complex structure, often necessitates decalcification of the hard tissue for ex vivo morphological studies. The choice of a suitable decalcification method plays a crucial role in preserving desired features and ensuring compatibility with diverse imaging techniques. The search for a universal decalcification method that is suitable for a range of biophotonic analyses remains an ongoing challenge. In this study, we systematically assessed five standard bone decalcification protocols, encompassing strong mineralic acids (3% and 5% nitric acid), a commercially available formulation of hydrochloric and formic acid), as well as weak organic acids (5% trichloroacetic acid and 8% formic acid), and a chelating agent (25% ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid) with varying decalcification durations, using mouse long bones as our experimental model. Our imaging analysis panel included classical histological staining (Hematoxylin and Eosin, H&E), immunofluorescence staining, and label-free Raman microspectroscopic imaging. We used cryosections instead of paraffin sections since paraffin interferes with tissue Raman signals. This approach is not as commonly used as it is more prone to handling artifacts, but is the preferred method for subsequent Raman analysis. Decalcification efficacy was evaluated based on various qualitative and some quantitative imaging parameters by 2-3 independent observers. Our systematic approach revealed that the chelating agent, when used for 24 h, optimally preserved bone features and, thus, would be the ideal decalcifying agent for comprehensive subsequent analysis. However, the choice of decalcifier and the ideal decalcification duration may vary depending on the type and thickness of bone, necessitating tailored adjustments to meet specific experimental requirements.
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.