MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180979457 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0022-15.2015

Optimization of CLARITY for Clearing Whole-Brain and Other Intact Organs

2015· article· en· W2180979457 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan R. Epp, Yosuke Niibori, Hwa‐Lin Hsiang, Valentina Mercaldo, Karl Deisseroth, Sheena A. Josselyn, Paul W. Frankland

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsClearingCLARITYPsychologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development, refinement, and use of techniques that allow high-throughput imaging of whole brains with cellular resolution will help us understand the complex functions of the brain. Such techniques are crucial for the analysis of complete neuronal morphology-anatomical and functional-connectivity, and repeated molecular phenotyping. CLARITY is a recently introduced technique that produces structurally intact, yet optically transparent tissue, which may be labeled and imaged without sectioning. However, the utility of this technique depends on several procedural variables during the process in which the light-scattering lipids in a tissue are replaced by a transparent hydrogel matrix. Here, we systematically varied a number of factors (including temperature, hydrogel composition, and polymerization conditions) to provide an optimized, highly replicable CLARITY procedure for clearing mouse brains. We found that for these preparations optimal tissue clearing requires electrophoresis (and cannot be achieved with passive clearing alone) for 5 d with a combination of 37 and 55°C temperature. Although this protocol is optimized for brains, we also show that it can be used to clear and analyze a variety of organs. Brain or other tissue prepared using this protocol is suitable for high-throughput imaging with confocal or single-plane illumination microscopy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations132
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207