Abstract
A wide variety of protocols have been proposed for optical clearing of tissues, whole-mount organs, and other bulky specimens to enable their volumetric fluorescence imaging. However, quantitative comparisons of tissue clearing protocols that take into account the fluorescence of the final specimens remain rare. Here, we propose a volumetric fluorescence image–based workflow for evaluating tissue clearing and fluorescence staining protocols. The workflow calculates depth-dependent fluorescence attenuation coefficients using data from entire 3D images, thereby avoiding spatial sampling bias and eliminating reliance on simple readouts, such as light transmittance, to predict fluorescence image quality. By combining autofluorescence signal with the signal from a specific fluorescence label, we independently evaluated transparency and the quality of fluorescence staining in cleared specimens. Using the proposed workflow, we systematically compared clearing and staining performance of three CUBIC-based protocols in murine liver, kidney, spleen, thymus, and intestine, and revealed differences in final fluorescence image quality across protocol–organ combinations.
Full text
1,262 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Abstract
A wide variety of protocols have been proposed for optical clearing of tissues, whole-mount organs, and other bulky specimens to enable their volumetric fluorescence imaging. However, quantitative comparisons of tissue clearing protocols that take into account the fluorescence of the final specimens remain rare. Here, we propose a volumetric fluorescence image–based workflow for evaluating tissue clearing and fluorescence staining protocols. The workflow calculates depth-dependent fluorescence attenuation coefficients using data from entire 3D images, thereby avoiding spatial sampling bias and eliminating reliance on simple readouts, such as light transmittance, to predict fluorescence image quality. By combining autofluorescence signal with the signal from a specific fluorescence label, we independently evaluated transparency and the quality of fluorescence staining in cleared specimens. Using the proposed workflow, we systematically compared clearing and staining performance of three CUBIC-based protocols in murine liver, kidney, spleen, thymus, and intestine, and revealed differences in final fluorescence image quality across protocol–organ combinations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.