MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802786597 · doi:10.3791/57431

Isolation and RNA Extraction of Neurons, Macrophages and Microglia from Larval Zebrafish Brains

2018· article· en· W2802786597 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Mazzolini, Kelda Chia, Dirk Sieger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsMicrogliaZebrafishBiologyCell biologyRNARNA extractionTranscriptomeCell cultureHomogenization (climate)Gene expressionGeneImmunologyInflammationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To gain a detailed understanding of the role of different CNS cells during development or the establishment and progression of brain pathologies, it is important to isolate these cells without changing their gene expression profile. The zebrafish model provides a large number of transgenic fish lines in which specific cell types are labelled; for example neurons in the NBT:DsRed line or macrophages/microglia in the mpeg1:eGFP line. Furthermore, antibodies have been developed to stain specific cells, such as microglia with the 4C4 antibody. Here, we describe the isolation of neurons, macrophages and microglia from larval zebrafish brains. Central to this protocol is the avoidance of an enzymatic tissue digestion at 37 °C, which could modify cellular profiles. Instead a mechanical system of tissue homogenization at 4 °C is used. This protocol entails homogenization of brains into cell suspension, their immuno-staining and the isolation of neurons, macrophages and microglia by FACS. Afterwards, we extracted RNA from those cells and evaluated their quality/quantity. We managed to obtain RNA of high quality (RNA Integrity Number (RIN) > 7) to perform qPCR on macrophages/microglia and neurons, and transcriptomic analysis on microglia. This approach enables a better characterization of these cells, as well as a clearer understanding about their role in development and pathologies.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207