ArticleJournal of anatomy1997
Ultrastructure of quick-frozen and freeze-substituted chick osteoclasts.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 1997. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For comparison with chemically fixed osteoclasts, we prepared chick osteoclasts by quick freezing followed by freeze-substitution. In spite of technical difficulties this demonstrated that osteoclasts can be satisfactorily frozen in situ by the metal contact method. Ultrastructural differences were revealed between conventional fixation and quick freezing. Compared with conventional fixation, the quick freezing method appeared to improve preservation: (1) a discrete trilaminar plasma membrane and other intracellular membranes showed a smooth profile without undulation or rupture; (2) cytoskeletal components appeared to be clearer, straighter, and more numerous; (3) the interior of the ruffled finger contained interconnected lattice structures whereas highly organised microfilaments were seen in the clear zone; (4) well developed tubulovesicular structures (TVSs) that branched or anastomosed with each other were revealed in the cytoplasm; (5) the contents of intracellular membrane systems including the nuclear envelope, endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi complex were stained to a various extent; (6) vesicles and vacuoles were much smaller, round and well-defined with electron-dense contents; (7) crystalline structures were seen at the extracellular channels of the ruffled border, in the lumen of TVSs, and in vesicles; (8) in some instances mitochondrial granules were visible; (9) within the resorptive lacuna, osteoclasts adhered to the degraded bone matrix without any intervening empty space.
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.