Kumi Nagamoto-Combs1, Gunjan D Manocha2, Kendra Puig2, Colin K Combs2. 1. Department of Pathology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 501N. Columbia Road Stop 9037, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9037, USA. Electronic address: kumi.combs@med.und.edu. 2. Department of Basic Sciences, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 501N. Columbia Road Stop 9037, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9037, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preparation and processing of free-floating histological sections involve a series of steps. The amount of labor, particularly sectioning and mounting, quickly multiplies as the number of samples increases. Embedding tissue samples in a flexible matrix allows simultaneous handling of multiple samples and preserves the integrity of the tissue during histological processing. However, aligning multiple asymmetrical samples, for example small-animal brains, in a particular orientation requires skillful arrangement and securing of the samples by pinning onto a solid surface. Consequently, costly technical services offered by contract research organizations are often sought. NEW METHOD: An improved approach to align and embed multiple whole or half rodent brain samples into a gelatin-based matrix is described. Using a template specifically designed to form arrayed mouse brain-shaped cavities, a "receiving matrix" is prepared. Inserting brain samples directly into the cavities allows the samples to be effortlessly positioned into a uniform orientation and embedded in a block of matrix. RESULTS: Multiple mouse brains were arrayed in a uniform orientation in a gelatin matrix block with ease using the receiving matrix. The gelatin-embedded brains were simultaneously sectioned and stained, and effortlessly mounted onto glass slides. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: The improved approach allowed multiple whole or half mouse brains to be easily arrayed without pinning the samples onto a solid surface and prevented damages or shifting of the samples during embedding. CONCLUSIONS: The new approach to array multiple brain samples provides a simple way to prepare gelatin-embedded whole or half brain arrays of commercial quality.
BACKGROUND: Preparation and processing of free-floating histological sections involve a series of steps. The amount of labor, particularly sectioning and mounting, quickly multiplies as the number of samples increases. Embedding tissue samples in a flexible matrix allows simultaneous handling of multiple samples and preserves the integrity of the tissue during histological processing. However, aligning multiple asymmetrical samples, for example small-animal brains, in a particular orientation requires skillful arrangement and securing of the samples by pinning onto a solid surface. Consequently, costly technical services offered by contract research organizations are often sought. NEW METHOD: An improved approach to align and embed multiple whole or half rodent brain samples into a gelatin-based matrix is described. Using a template specifically designed to form arrayed mouse brain-shaped cavities, a "receiving matrix" is prepared. Inserting brain samples directly into the cavities allows the samples to be effortlessly positioned into a uniform orientation and embedded in a block of matrix. RESULTS: Multiple mouse brains were arrayed in a uniform orientation in a gelatin matrix block with ease using the receiving matrix. The gelatin-embedded brains were simultaneously sectioned and stained, and effortlessly mounted onto glass slides. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: The improved approach allowed multiple whole or half mouse brains to be easily arrayed without pinning the samples onto a solid surface and prevented damages or shifting of the samples during embedding. CONCLUSIONS: The new approach to array multiple brain samples provides a simple way to prepare gelatin-embedded whole or half brain arrays of commercial quality.
Authors: Patricia A Hurley; Maria Clarke; Jeremy M Crook; Andrew K Wise; Robert K Shepherd Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi Journal: Nat Med Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Joshua A Kulas; Whitney F Franklin; Nicholas A Smith; Gunjan D Manocha; Kendra L Puig; Kumi Nagamoto-Combs; Rachel D Hendrix; Giulio Taglialatela; Steven W Barger; Colin K Combs Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Gunjan D Manocha; Angela M Floden; Nicole M Miller; Abbie J Smith; Kumi Nagamoto-Combs; Takashi Saito; Takaomi C Saido; Colin K Combs Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: John F Smiley; Cynthia Bleiwas; Kurt Masiello; Eva Petkova; Judith Betz; Maria Hui; Donald A Wilson; Mariko Saito Journal: Brain Struct Funct Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.270
Authors: John F Smiley; Cynthia Bleiwas; Stefanie Canals-Baker; Sharifa Z Williams; Robert Sears; Catia M Teixeira; Donald A Wilson; Mariko Saito Journal: Alcohol Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 2.405
Authors: Harpreet Kaur; Kumi Nagamoto-Combs; Svetlana Golovko; Mikhail Y Golovko; Marilyn G Klug; Colin Kelly Combs Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Danielle L Germundson; Nicholas A Smith; Lane P Vendsel; Andrea V Kelsch; Colin K Combs; Kumi Nagamoto-Combs Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: Mona Sohrabi; Angela M Floden; Gunjan D Manocha; Marilyn G Klug; Colin K Combs Journal: Front Cell Neurosci Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 5.505