C M Monoranu1, M Apfelbacher1,2, E Grünblatt2, B Puppe1, I Alafuzoff3, I Ferrer4, S Al-Saraj5, K Keyvani6, A Schmitt7, P Falkai7, J Schittenhelm8, G Halliday9, J Kril10, C Harper10, C McLean11, P Riederer2, W Roggendorf1. 1. Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, Würzburg. 2. Clinical Neurochemistry (National Parkinson Foundation Centre of Excellence Research Laboratory), Clinic and Policlinic for Psychiatry, Psychosomatic and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, Kuopio University, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Institut de Neuropatologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Clinical Neuropathology, London Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK. 6. Institute of Neuropathology, University Hospital, Münster. 7. Clinic of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Georg-August-University, Göttingen. 8. Institute of Brain Research Neuropathology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 9. Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute and University of New South Wales, Sydney. 10. Department of Pathology, University of Sydney, Syndney. 11. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Monash University, The Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: Most brain diseases are complex entities. Although animal models or cell culture experiments mimic some disease aspects, human post mortem brain tissue remains essential to advance our understanding of brain diseases using biochemical and molecular techniques. Post mortem artefacts must be properly understood, standardized, and either eliminated or factored into such experiments. Here we examine the influence of several premortem and post mortem factors on pH, and discuss the role of pH as a biochemical marker for brain tissue quality. METHODS: We assessed brain tissue pH in 339 samples from 116 brains provided by 8 different European and 2 Australian brain bank centres. We correlated brain pH with tissue source, post mortem delay, age, gender, freezing method, storage duration, agonal state and brain ischaemia. RESULTS: Our results revealed that only prolonged agonal state and ischaemic brain damage influenced brain tissue pH next to repeated freeze/thaw cycles. CONCLUSIONS: pH measurement in brain tissue is a good indicator of premortem events in brain tissue and it signals limitations for post mortem investigations.
AIMS: Most brain diseases are complex entities. Although animal models or cell culture experiments mimic some disease aspects, human post mortem brain tissue remains essential to advance our understanding of brain diseases using biochemical and molecular techniques. Post mortem artefacts must be properly understood, standardized, and either eliminated or factored into such experiments. Here we examine the influence of several premortem and post mortem factors on pH, and discuss the role of pH as a biochemical marker for brain tissue quality. METHODS: We assessed brain tissue pH in 339 samples from 116 brains provided by 8 different European and 2 Australian brain bank centres. We correlated brain pH with tissue source, post mortem delay, age, gender, freezing method, storage duration, agonal state and brain ischaemia. RESULTS: Our results revealed that only prolonged agonal state and ischaemic brain damage influenced brain tissue pH next to repeated freeze/thaw cycles. CONCLUSIONS: pH measurement in brain tissue is a good indicator of premortem events in brain tissue and it signals limitations for post mortem investigations.
Authors: Ana D Stan; Subroto Ghose; Xue-Min Gao; Rosalinda C Roberts; Kelly Lewis-Amezcua; Kimmo J Hatanpaa; Carol A Tamminga Journal: Brain Res Date: 2006-10-12 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: John F Ervin; Erin L Heinzen; Kenneth D Cronin; David Goldstein; Mari H Szymanski; James R Burke; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; Christine M Hulette Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Jeremy A Miller; Angela Guillozet-Bongaarts; Laura E Gibbons; Nadia Postupna; Anne Renz; Allison E Beller; Susan M Sunkin; Lydia Ng; Shannon E Rose; Kimberly A Smith; Aaron Szafer; Chris Barber; Darren Bertagnolli; Kristopher Bickley; Krissy Brouner; Shiella Caldejon; Mike Chapin; Mindy L Chua; Natalie M Coleman; Eiron Cudaback; Christine Cuhaciyan; Rachel A Dalley; Nick Dee; Tsega Desta; Tim A Dolbeare; Nadezhda I Dotson; Michael Fisher; Nathalie Gaudreault; Garrett Gee; Terri L Gilbert; Jeff Goldy; Fiona Griffin; Caroline Habel; Zeb Haradon; Nika Hejazinia; Leanne L Hellstern; Steve Horvath; Kim Howard; Robert Howard; Justin Johal; Nikolas L Jorstad; Samuel R Josephsen; Chihchau L Kuan; Florence Lai; Eric Lee; Felix Lee; Tracy Lemon; Xianwu Li; Desiree A Marshall; Jose Melchor; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Julie Nyhus; Julie Pendergraft; Lydia Potekhina; Elizabeth Y Rha; Samantha Rice; David Rosen; Abharika Sapru; Aimee Schantz; Elaine Shen; Emily Sherfield; Shu Shi; Andy J Sodt; Nivretta Thatra; Michael Tieu; Angela M Wilson; Thomas J Montine; Eric B Larson; Amy Bernard; Paul K Crane; Richard G Ellenbogen; C Dirk Keene; Ed Lein Journal: Elife Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Jeffrey R Cottrell; Jonathan M Levenson; Sung Hyun Kim; Helen E Gibson; Kristen A Richardson; Michael Sivula; Bing Li; Crystle J Ashford; Karen A Heindl; Ryan J Babcock; David M Rose; Chris M Hempel; Kjesten A Wiig; Pascal Laeng; Margaret E Levin; Timothy A Ryan; David J Gerber Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 6.167