MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2754812078 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4322.1.1

Collection management and study of microscope slides: Storage, profiling, deterioration, restoration procedures, and general recommendations

2017· article· en· W2754812078 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueZootaxa · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueResearch Data Management Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversität SalzburgUniversitetet i OsloWest Virginia UniversityNaturalis Biodiversity CenterFundação Oswaldo CruzU.S. Department of Agriculture
Mots-clésData scienceMicroscope slideProfiling (computer programming)BiologyComputer scienceMicroscopePathologyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A wide range of aspects concerning microscope slides, their preparation, long-time storage, curatorial measures in collections, deterioration, restoration, and study is summarized based on our own data and by analyzing more than 600 references from the 19th century until 2016, 15 patents, and about 100 Materials Safety Data Sheets. Information from systematic zoology, conservation sciences, chemistry, forensic sciences, pathology, paleopathology, applied sciences like food industry, and most recent advances in digital imaging are put together in order to obtain a better understanding of which and possibly why mounting media and coverslip seals deteriorate, how slides can be salvaged, which studies may be necessary to identify a range of ideal mounting media, and how microscope studies can benefit from improvements in developmental biology and related fields. We also elaborate on confusing usage of concepts like that of maceration and of clearing. The chemical ingredients of a range of mounting media and coverslip seals are identified as much as possible from published data, but this information suffers in so far as the composition of a medium is often proprietary of the manufacturer and may vary over time. Advantages, disadvantages, and signs of deterioration are documented extensively for these media both from references and from our own observations. It turns out that many media degrade within a few years, or decades at the latest, except Canada balsam with a documented life-time of 150 years, Euparal with a documented life-time of 50 years, and glycerol-paraffin mounts sealed with Glyceel, which represents almost the only non-deteriorating and easily reversible mount. Deterioration reveals itself as a yellowing in natural resins and as cracking, crystallization, shrinkage on drying or possibly on loss of a plasticizer, detachment of the coverslip, segregation of the ingredients in synthetic polymers, as well as continued maceration of a specimen to a degree that the specimen virtually disappears. Confusingly, decay does not always appear equally within a collection of slides mounted at the same time in the same medium. The reasons for the deteriorative processes have been discussed but are controversial especially for gum-chloral media. Comparing data from conservation sciences, chemical handbooks, and documented ingredients, we discuss here how far chemical and physical deterioration probably are inherent to many media and are caused by the chemical and physical properties of their components and by chemicals dragged along from previous preparation steps like fixation, chemical maceration, and physical clearing. Some recipes even contain a macerating agent, which proceeds with its destructive work. We provide permeability data for oxygen and water vapor of several polymers contained in mounting media and coverslip seals. Calculation of the penetration rate of moisture in one example reveals that water molecules reach a specimen within a few days up to about a month; this lays to rest extensive discussions about the permanent protection of a mounted specimen by a mounting medium and a coverslip seal. Based on the ever growing evidence of the unsuitable composition and application of many, and possibly almost all, mounting media, we strongly encourage changing the perspective on microscope slides from immediate usability and convenience of preparation towards durability and reversibility, concepts taken from conservation sciences. Such a change has already been suggested by Upton (1993) more than 20 years ago for gum-chloral media, but these media are still encouraged nowadays by scientists. Without a new perspective, taxonomic biology will certainly lose a large amount of its specimen basis for its research within the next few decades. Modern non-invasive techniques like Raman spectroscopy may help to identify mounting media and coverslip seals on a given slide as well as to understand ageing of the media. An outlook is given on potential future studies. In order to improve the situation of existing collections of microscope slides, we transfer concepts as per the Smithsonian Collections Standards and Profiling System, developed for insect collections more than 25 years ago, to collections of slides. We describe historical and current properties and usage of glass slides, coverslips, labels, and adhesives under conservational aspects. In addition, we summarize and argue from published and our own experimental information about restorative procedures, including re-hydration of dried-up specimens previously mounted in a fluid medium. Alternatives to microscope slides are considered. We also extract practical suggestions from the literature concerning microscope equipment, cleaning of optical surfaces, health risks of immersion oil, and recent improvements of temporary observation media especially in connection with new developments in digital software.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,390
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,010
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,298 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle