↓ Skip to main content

Fixation methods can differentially affect ciliary protein immunolabeling

Overview of attention for article published in Cilia, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
Fixation methods can differentially affect ciliary protein immunolabeling
Published in
Cilia, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13630-017-0045-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kiet Hua, Russell J. Ferland

Abstract

Primary cilia are immotile, microtubule-based organelles present on most cells. Defects in primary cilia presence/function result in a category of developmental diseases referred to as ciliopathies. As the cilia field progresses, there is a need to consider both the ciliary and extraciliary roles of cilia proteins. However, traditional fixation methods are not always suitable for examining the full range of localizations of cilia proteins. Here, we tested a variety of fixation methods with commonly used cilia markers to determine the most appropriate fixation method for different cilia proteins. Mouse inner medullary collecting duct and human retinal pigmented epithelial cells were grown to confluence, serum starved, and fixed with one of the following fixation agents: paraformaldehyde-sucrose, paraformaldehyde-PBS, methanol, cytoskeletal buffer followed by methanol, or three variations of cytoskeletal buffer-paraformaldehyde fixation. Each cell type and fixation method combination was probed with the following ciliary markers: acetylated α-tubulin, detyrosinated tubulin, polyglutamylated tubulin, β-tubulin, adenylyl cyclase 3 (AC3), ADP-ribosylation factor-like protein 13b (Arl13b), centrosome and spindle pole associated protein 1 (CSPP1), or intraflagellar transport protein 20 (IFT20). Intraflagellar transport protein 88 (IFT88) and GM130 (Golgi marker) were also used. We assessed actin (via phalloidin) and microtubule integrity, centrioles, cilia, and two extraciliary sites (mitotic figures and Golgi). For the cilia markers examined, paraformaldehyde fixation preserved cilia immunolabeling of cilia-membrane proteins (AC3 and Arl13b), but failed to reveal cilia immunostaining of axonemal proteins (CSPP1 and IFT20). Methanol revealed cilia labeling for some axonemal proteins, but not others, and this depended on cell type. Generally, any method that first included a wash in cytoskeletal buffer, before fixing, revealed more distinct cilia immunolabeling for axonemal proteins (CSPP1, IFT20, and IFT88), but resulted in the loss of cilia labeling for cilia-membrane proteins (AC3 and Arl13b). All three different post-translational modifications of tubulin antibodies positively immunolabeled cilia in all fixation methods tested. Ultimately, we found that fixing cells in a solution of paraformaldehyde prepared in cytoskeletal buffer allowed for the preservation of cilia immunolabeling for most cilia proteins tested and allowed visualization of two extraciliary sites (mitotic figures and Golgi). Some general patterns were observed to guide in the choice of a fixation agent. Cilia-membrane proteins generally benefit from quick fixation with no prior permeabilization, whereas axonemal proteins tend to benefit from permeabilization and use of cytoskeletal buffer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 26%
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 6%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 88 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 18%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 43 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,504,088
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Cilia
#35
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,771
of 310,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cilia
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 310,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.