Volumetric fluorescence microscopy-based quantitative comparison of murine tissue clearing using CUBIC protocols

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00