MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997784714 · doi:10.3791/1286

Batch Immunostaining for Large-Scale Protein Detection in the Whole Monkey Brain

2009· article· en· W1997784714 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahin Zangenehpour, Mark Burke, Avi Chaudhuri, Maurice Ptito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunostainingImmunohistochemistryStainingPopulationSet (abstract data type)NeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyPathologyMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is one of the most widely used laboratory techniques for the detection of target proteins in situ. Questions concerning the expression pattern of a target protein across the entire brain are relatively easy to answer when using IHC in small brains, such as those of rodents. However, answering the same questions in large and convoluted brains, such as those of primates presents a number of challenges. Here we present a systematic approach for immunodetection of target proteins in an adult monkey brain. This approach relies on the tissue embedding and sectioning methodology of NeuroScience Associates (NSA) as well as tools developed specifically for batch-staining of free-floating sections. It results in uniform staining of a set of sections which, at a particular interval, represents the entire brain. The resulting stained sections can be subjected to a wide variety of analytical procedures in order to measure protein levels, the population of neurons expressing a certain protein.

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)0.000
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207