Extrapituitary GH in the chicken: underestimation of immunohistochemical staining by Carnoy's fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GH has previously been shown to be present in peripheral extrapituitary tIssues of chick embryos, but the cellular distribution of GH immunoreactivity is still uncertain because of differing immunohistochemical findings. The possibility that this uncertainty reflects differences in fixation of the embryonic tIssues was assessed by comparing GH immunoreactivity in tIssues fixed in 4% (w/v) paraformaldehyde or Carnoy's fluid (60% ethanol (v/v); 30% chloroform (v/v); 10% acetic acid (v/v)). A widespread distribution of GH immunoreactivity was seen in paraformaldehyde-fixed tIssues, although it was particularly intense in the spinal cord, dorsal and ventral root ganglia, notochord, myotome, epidermis, crop, heart, lung and humerus. In marked contrast, GH immunoreactivity in embryonic tIssues fixed with Carnoy's was more discrete and mainly restricted to marginal and mantle layers of the spinal cord, spinal nerves, the ventral root ganglia and the extensor nerve of the anterior limb bud. Since these are neural derivatives, Carnoy's fixation appears to preferentially result in neural GH staining, whereas GH staining in neural and non-neural tIssues is seen after paraformaldehyde fixation. Carnoy's, because it is a precipitive fixative, may only fix large GH moieties, whereas GH in peripheral tIssues includes numerous molecular variants, many of which are of relatively small size. Paraformaldehyde, because it is a cross-linking fixative, preferentially fixes peptides and small proteins, and it may therefore fix more GH moieties than Carnoy's fluid. Carnoy's fixation appears to underestimate GH immunoreactivity in immunohistochemical studies on the cellular distribution of GH-like proteins in embryonic chicks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".