MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367301909 · doi:10.3791/65218

<em>In vivo</em> whole-brain imaging of zebrafish larvae using three-dimensional fluorescence microscopy

2023· article· en· W4367301909 on OpenAlexaff
Eun‐Seo Cho, Seungjae Han, Gyuri Kim, Minho Eom, Kang‐Han Lee, Cheol‐Hee Kim, Young‐Gyu Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsZebrafishFluorescence microscopeConfocal microscopyMicroscopyPreclinical imagingIn vivoFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyConfocalBiologyAgaroseFluorescenceCell biologyPathologyMolecular biologyMedicinePhysicsBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a vertebrate model animal, larval zebrafish are widely used in neuroscience and provide a unique opportunity to monitor whole-brain activity at the cellular resolution. Here, we provide an optimized protocol for performing whole-brain imaging of larval zebrafish using three-dimensional fluorescence microscopy, including sample preparation and immobilization, sample embedding, image acquisition, and visualization after imaging. The current protocol enables in vivo imaging of the structure and neuronal activity of a larval zebrafish brain at a cellular resolution for over 1 h using confocal microscopy and custom-designed fluorescence microscopy. The critical steps in the protocol are also discussed, including sample mounting and positioning, preventing bubble formation and dust in the agarose gel, and avoiding motion in images caused by incomplete solidification of the agarose gel and paralyzation of the fish. The protocol has been validated and confirmed in multiple settings. This protocol can be easily adapted for imaging other organs of a larval zebrafish.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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