↓ Skip to main content

Imaging the Drosophila retina: zwitterionic buffers PIPES and HEPES induce morphological artifacts in tissue fixation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Developmental Biology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Imaging the Drosophila retina: zwitterionic buffers PIPES and HEPES induce morphological artifacts in tissue fixation
Published in
BMC Developmental Biology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12861-015-0056-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Nie, Simpla Mahato, Andrew C Zelhof

Abstract

BackgroundTissue fixation is crucial for preserving the morphology of biological structures and cytological details to prevent postmortem degradation and autolysis. Improper fixation conditions could lead to artifacts and thus incorrect conclusions in immunofluorescence or histology experiments. To resolve reported structural anomalies with respect to Drosophila photoreceptor cell organization we developed and utilized a combination of live imaging and fixed samples to investigate the exact biogenesis and to identify the underlying source for the reported discrepancies in structure.ResultsWe found that piperazine-N,N¿-bis(ethanesulfonic acid) (PIPES) and 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid (HEPES), two zwitterionic buffers commonly used in tissue fixation, can cause severe lumen and cell morphological defects in Drosophila pupal and adult retina; the inter-rhabdomeral lumen becomes dilated and the photoreceptor cells are significantly reduced in size. Correspondingly, the localization pattern of Eyes shut (EYS), a luminal protein, is severely altered. In contrast, tissues fixed in the phosphate buffered saline (PBS) buffer results in lumen and cell morphologies that are consistent with live imaging.ConclusionsWe suggest that PIPES and HEPES buffers should be utilized with caution for fixation when examining the interplay between cells and their extracellular environment, especially in Drosophila pupal and adult retina research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Neuroscience 3 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2019.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Developmental Biology
#232
of 370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,540
of 355,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Developmental Biology
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 370 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.