MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606869674 · doi:10.3791/55358

Imaging Neurons within Thick Brain Sections Using the Golgi-Cox Method

2017· article· en· W2606869674 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Louise Louth, Charles Sutton, Ari L. Mendell, Neil J. MacLusky, Craig D. C. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsNissl bodyCresyl violetNeuronStainDendritic spineDendrite (mathematics)StainingBiologySomaAnatomyGolgi apparatusMicroscopyNeurosciencePathologyHippocampal formationMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Golgi-Cox method of neuron staining has been employed for more than two hundred years to advance our understanding of neuron morphology within histological brain samples. While it is preferable from a practical perspective to prepare brain sections at the greatest thickness possible, in order to increase the probability of identifying stained neurons that are fully contained within single sections, this approach is limited from a technical perspective by the working distance of high-magnification microscope objectives. We report here a protocol to stain neurons using the Golgi-Cox method in mouse brain sections that are cut at 500 μm thickness, and to visualize neurons throughout the depth of these sections using an upright microscope fitted with a high-resolution 30X 1.05 N.A. silicone oil-immersion objective that has an 800 μm working distance. We also report two useful variants of this protocol that may be employed to counterstain the surface of mounted brain sections with the cresyl violet Nissl stain, or to freeze whole brains for long-term storage prior to sectioning and final processing. The main protocol and its two variants produce stained thick brain sections, throughout which full neuron dendritic trees and dendrite spines may be reliably visualized and quantified.

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)0.001
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.442 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207