Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41774705›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Design and evaluation of low-cost, DIY programmable tissue processor for solvent exchange in biological sample preparation.

May Wang, Samantha Pelletier, Alexis Ellis, Robert F Shepherd, Margaret H Frank, Abraham D Stroock, Anand Kumar Mishra, Vesna Bacheva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

8 authors.

May WangDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Samantha PelletierSchool of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8817-4942
Alexis EllisSmith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Robert F ShepherdDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Margaret H FrankSchool of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8269-8240
Abraham D StroockSchool of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Anand Kumar MishraDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Vesna BachevaSchool of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3908-4128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging techniques are fundamental tools in biology for examining cell growth and responses to the environment. Many tissues require fixing, staining, and/or clearing before they can be visualized under a microscope. However, these protocols, such as those using propidium iodide (PI), a fluorescent cationic stain widely used across biological specimens including plant, mammalian, and bacterial, often require laborious dehydration and rehydration steps to facilitate stain penetration. These stepwise solvent exchanges, for example, by passing tissues through a graded ethanol series, are time-consuming and manually intensive. While automated tissue processors offer an alternative, they are outside of the budget for many labs. Here, we present an open-source, low-cost (~$400) automated tissue processor that performs sequential dehydration and rehydration of biological tissues, significantly reducing hands-on labor. The processor is made of readily available, standardized parts and includes custom software that allows users to define and save protocols. We demonstrate the use of the processor by automating a multi-day PI staining protocol across multiple plant species, tissue morphologies, and users, and by comparing tissue quality with hand-processed samples. Our design provides a low-cost, accessible alternative to expensive commercial tissue processors, offering a practical solution for a wide range of biology laboratories.

Indexed as

SolventsSpecimen HandlingPropidiumSoftwareStaining and LabelingPropidiumSolvents

Identifiers

PMID41774705
PMCPMC12956129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.