High Resolution Fluorescent <em>In Situ</em> Hybridization in <em>Drosophila</em> Embryos and Tissues Using Tyramide Signal Amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our efforts to determine the patterns of expression and subcellular localization of Drosophila RNAs on a genome-wide basis, and in a variety of tissues, we have developed numerous modifications and improvements to our original fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) protocol. To facilitate throughput and cost effectiveness, all steps, from probe generation to signal detection, are performed using exon 96-well microtiter plates. Digoxygenin (DIG)-labelled antisense RNA probes are produced using either cDNA clones or genomic DNA as templates. After tissue fixation and permeabilization, probes are hybridized to transcripts of interest and then detected using a succession of anti-DIG antibody conjugated to biotin, streptavidin conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and fluorescently conjugated tyramide, which in the presence of HRP, produces a highly reactive intermediate that binds to electron dense regions of immediately adjacent proteins. These amplification and localization steps produce a robust and highly localized signal that facilitates both cellular and subcellular transcript localization. The protocols provided have been optimized to produce highly specific signals in a variety of tissues and developmental stages. References are also provided for additional variations that allow the simultaneous detection of multiple transcripts, or transcripts and proteins, at the same time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".