Quantifying Cardiac Scar Tissue in Fish

Hearts were fixed overnight in 4% PFA, dehydrated and paraffin embedded, and then serial sectioned on a Leica RM2135 microtome at 7 μm and stained with AFOG as described^{3 (link),52 (link)}. Severity of scar was assessed by a scoring system: 0 = no visible scar; 1 = mild blue stain on either the epicardial or endocardial surface (but not transmural); 2 = small blue collagen stain extending from endocardial to epicardial surface (transmural); 3 = larger or thick transmural blue collagen stain. Two independent blinded investigators assessed control and mTnni3k fish for scar severity. Statistical significance was assessed by a chi-squared test.

Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol.
The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link: Access Free Full Text.

Patterson M., Barske L., Van Handel B., Rau C.D., Gan P., Sharma A., Parikh S., Denholtz M., Huang Y., Yamaguchi Y., Shen H., Allayee H., Crump J.G., Force T.I., Lien C.L., Makita T., Lusis A.J., Kumar S.R, & Sucov H.M. (2017). Frequency of mononuclear diploid cardiomyocytes underlies natural variation in heart regeneration. Nature genetics, 49(9), 1346-1353.

Publication 2017

RM2135 microtome

Collagen Endocardial Fish Hearts Microtome Paraffin Scar Stain

Corresponding Organization :

Other organizations : University of Southern California, University of California, Los Angeles, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles

Top 5 similar protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

Genetic manipulation of mTnni3k in fish

dependent variables

Severity of scar, assessed by a scoring system (0 = no visible scar, 1 = mild blue stain, 2 = small blue collagen stain, 3 = larger or thick transmural blue collagen stain)

control variables

Control fish (not manipulated)

controls

Positive control: Control fish (not manipulated)
Negative control: Not explicitly mentioned

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!