Fixed Sample Analysis
Fixed Sample Analysis - Related Videos
09:20
Proteomic Sample Preparation from Formalin Fixed and Paraffin Embedded Tissue
0 Views •
Cited by 50 •
2013
Archival formalin fixed and paraffin embedded (FFPE) clinical samples are valuable material for investigation of diseases. Here we demonstrate a sample preparation workflow allowing in-depth proteomic analysis of microdissected FFPE tissue.
10:16
Protocol for Microplastics Sampling on the Sea Surface and Sample Analysis
0 Views •
Cited by 186 •
2016
The protocol below describes the methodology for: microplastics sampling on the sea surface, separation of microplastic and chemical identification of particles. This protocol is in line with the recommendations for microplastics monitoring published by the MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter.
10:30
Cytological Analysis of Spermatogenesis: Live and Fixed Preparations of Drosophila Testes
0 Views •
Cited by 28 •
2014
Methods for isolating and preparing Drosophila testes samples (live and fixed) for imaging by phase-contrast and fluorescence microscopy are described...
11:24
High-throughput Imaging and Analysis Workflow for Evaluating Skin Cell Phenotypes and Proliferation States in Tissue Samples
0 Views •
Cited by 1 •
2025
The combination of iterative-bleaching-extends-multiplexity (IBEX) and a commercial nucleotide labeling assay (Click-iT EdU) enables the detection and categorization of dividing cell types in highly dynamic processes in fixed frozen murine tissue sections. Furthermore, a novel open-source image processing pipeline provides high-throughput image acquisition and analysis.
09:21
Laser Capture Microdissection of Paraformaldehyde-Fixed Mouse Liver Tissue for RNA Analysis
0 Views •
2026
This protocol describes a method to isolate RNA from defined histological regions of paraformaldehyde-fixed, Optimal Cutting Temperature compound-embedded mouse liver tissue using laser capture microdissection, enabling targeted downstream gene expression analysis.
FAQs
Cross-linking stabilizes proteins by chemically joining them, whereas protein precipitation preserves structure by making proteins insoluble. These mechanisms limit degradation and help retain the spatial relationships among cellular components. Their importance in fixed sample analysis is that later staining, immunolabeling, and microscopy can be interpreted against preserved tissue organization.
Localization depends on both spatial organization and the continued detectability of target molecules. Preserved architecture shows where immune cells or pathogen-associated antigens occur, while retained targets support biomarker detection through staining or immunolabeling. Losing either type of information can weaken interpretation of tissue responses during infection-related studies.
Fixed sample analysis offers a preserved specimen for examination when live-cell analysis is impractical or biosafety requirements restrict direct handling. This makes it suitable for assessing morphology, locating immune cells or pathogen-associated antigens, and comparing infection-related tissue changes without requiring the sample to remain available for live observation.
A typical workflow moves from fixation to sample processing, followed when needed by embedding and sectioning. Researchers then apply staining or immunolabeling and examine the prepared material by microscopy. Keeping these stages conceptually separate helps distinguish structural preservation from the later steps that reveal morphology, biomarkers, immune cells, or pathogen-associated antigens.
In immunology and infection research, the approach can map immune cells, pathogen-associated antigens, and tissue responses within the same preserved specimen. That spatial context connects biomarker detection with morphology, allowing investigators to examine where an infection-related feature occurs rather than considering the detected signal without its surrounding tissue organization.
Results can be used to compare infection-related changes across preserved samples by combining morphological assessment with biomarker detection. Microscopy reveals structural patterns, while staining or immunolabeling identifies selected cellular or pathogen-associated features. Such comparisons are especially useful when direct handling of live material is impractical or limited by biosafety requirements.