MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782879747 · doi:10.1080/10520295.2017.1399466

Does progressive nuclear staining with hemalum (alum hematoxylin) involve DNA, and what is the nature of the dye-chromatin complex?

2018· article· en· W2782879747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnic & Histochemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainingDNAChemistryNucleic acidChromatinCationic polymerizationHistoneThionineFeulgen stainBiochemistryBiophysicsMethylene blueNuclear chemistryBiologyPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous investigators have disagreed about whether hemalum stains DNA or its associated nucleoproteins. I review here the literature and describe new experiments in an attempt to resolve the controversy. Hemalum solutions, which contain aluminum ions and hematein, are routinely used to stain nuclei. A solution containing 16 Al3+ ions for each hematein molecule, at pH 2.0–2.5, provides selective progressive staining of chromatin without cytoplasmic or extracellular “background color.” Such solutions contain a red cationic dye-metal complex and an excess of Al3+ ions. The red complex is converted to an insoluble blue compound, assumed to be polymeric, but of undetermined composition, when stained sections are blued in water at pH 5.5–8.5. Staining experiments with DNA, histone and DNA + histone mixtures support the theory that DNA, not histone, is progressively colored by hemalum. Extraction of nucleic acids, by either a strong acid or nucleases at near neutral pH, prevented chromatin staining by a simple cationic dye, thionine, pH 4, and by hemalum, with pH adjustments in the range, 2.0–3.5. Staining by hemalum at pH 2.0–3.5 was not inhibited by methylation, which completely prevented staining by thionine at pH 4. Staining by hemalum and other dye-metal complexes at pH ≤ 2 may be due to the high acidity of DNA-phosphodiester (pKa ~ 1). This argument does not explain the requirement for a much higher pH to stain DNA with those dyes and fluorochromes not used as dye-metal complexes. Sequential treatment of sections with Al2(SO4)3 followed by hematein provides nuclear staining that is weaker than that attainable with hemalum. Stronger staining is seen if the pH is raised to 3.0–3.5, but there is also coloration of cytoplasm and other materials. These observations do not support the theory that Al3+ forms bridges between chromatin and hematein. When staining with hematein is followed by an Al2(SO4)3 solution, there is no significant staining. Taken together, the results of my study indicate that the red hemalum cation is electrostatically attracted to the phosphate anion of DNA. The bulky complex cation is too large to intercalate between base pairs of DNA and is unlikely to fit into the minor groove. The short range van der Waals forces that bind planar dye cations to DNA probably do not contribute to the stability of progressive hemalum staining. The red cation is precipitated in situ as a blue compound, insoluble in water, ethanol and water-ethanol mixtures, when a stained preparation is blued at pH > 5.5.

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.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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