MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996353669 · doi:10.3791/4042

Wholemount Immunohistochemistry for Revealing Complex Brain Topography

2012· article· en· W1996353669 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua J. White, Stacey L. Reeber, Richard Hawkes, Roy V. Sillitoe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva UniversityYeshiva University
KeywordsCerebellumCytoarchitectureNeuroscienceImmunostainingAfferentBiologyComputer scienceCerebellar cortexCompartmentalization (fire protection)Immunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The repeated and well-understood cellular architecture of the cerebellum make it an ideal model system for exploring brain topography. Underlying its relatively uniform cytoarchitecture is a complex array of parasagittal domains of gene and protein expression. The molecular compartmentalization of the cerebellum is mirrored by the anatomical and functional organization of afferent fibers. To fully appreciate the complexity of cerebellar organization we previously refined a wholemount staining approach for high throughput analysis of patterning defects in the mouse cerebellum. This protocol describes in detail the reagents, tools, and practical steps that are useful to successfully reveal protein expression patterns in the adult mouse cerebellum by using wholemount immunostaining. The steps highlighted here demonstrate the utility of this method using the expression of zebrinII/aldolaseC as an example of how the fine topography of the brain can be revealed in its native three-dimensional conformation. Also described are adaptations to the protocol that allow for the visualization of protein expression in afferent projections and large cerebella for comparative studies of molecular topography. To illustrate these applications, data from afferent staining of the rat cerebellum are included.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207