Comparison of histological procedures and antigenicity of human post-mortem brains fixed with solutions used in gross anatomy laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Brain banks provide small tissue samples to researchers, while gross anatomy laboratories could provide larger samples, including complete brains to neuroscientists. However, they are preserved with solutions appropriate for gross-dissection, different from the classic neutral-buffered formalin (NBF) used in brain banks. Our previous work in mice showed that two gross-anatomy laboratory solutions, a saturated-salt-solution (SSS) and an alcohol-formaldehyde-solution (AFS), preserve antigenicity of the main cellular markers. Our goal is now to compare the quality of histology and antigenicity preservation of human brains fixed with NBF by immersion (practice of brain banks) vs. those fixed with a SSS and an AFS by whole body perfusion, practice of gross-anatomy laboratories. Methods We used a convenience sample of 42 brains (31 males, 11 females; 25-90 years old) fixed with NBF (N=12), SSS (N=13), and AFS (N=17). One cm 3 tissue blocks were cut, cryoprotected, frozen and sliced into 40 μm sections. The four cell populations were labeled using immunohistochemistry (neuronal-nuclei (NeuN), glial-fibrillary-acidic-protein (GFAP), ionized-calcium-binding-adaptor-molecule1 (Iba1) and myelin-proteolipid-protein (PLP)). We qualitatively assessed antigenicity and cell distribution, and compared the ease of manipulation of the sections, the microscopic tissue quality, and the quality of common histochemical stains (e.g., Cresyl violet, Luxol fast blue, etc.) across solutions. Results Sections of SSS-fixed brains were more difficult to manipulate and showed poorer tissue quality than those from brains fixed with the other solutions. The four antigens were preserved, and cell labeling was more often homogenous in AFS-fixed specimens. NeuN and GFAP were not always present in the NBF and SSS samples. Some antigens were heterogeneously distributed in some specimens, independently of the fixative, but an antigen retrieval protocol successfully recovered them. Finally, the histochemical stains were of sufficient quality regardless of the fixative, although neurons were more often paler in SSS-fixed specimens. Conclusion Antigenicity was preserved in human brains fixed with solutions used in human gross-anatomy (albeit the poorer quality of SSS-fixed specimens). For some specific variables, histology quality was superior in AFS-fixed brains. Furthermore, we show the feasibility of frequently used histochemical stains. These results are promising for neuroscientists interested in using brain specimens from anatomy laboratories.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".