The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A cryoprotection method that facilitates cutting frozen sections of whole monkey brains for histological and histochemical processing without freezing artifact.
Open accessAbstract
Cutting frozen sections of large (greater than 60 cc) blocks of monkey brain using the conventional procedures of infiltration with 30% sucrose as a cryoprotectant before freezing with pulverized dry ice often produces unacceptable levels of freezing artifact (FA) caused by displacement of tissue by ice crystals. Experiments investigating FA utilized perfusion-fixed brains from 46 monkeys and spanned combinations of cryoprotectants (glycerol, sucrose), freezing methods (dry ice or -75 degrees C isopentane), and fixatives (10% formalin, Karnovsky's or Timm's). The effects were evaluated by rating of FA severity in frozen sections of whole monkey brains. Minor FA appears as enlarged capillaries, more serious FA as large vacuoles, and both first appear midway between the periphery and center of the block. Stronger fixatives increased the severity of freezing artifact. The best method for eliminating FA was graded infiltration with up to 20% glycerol and 2% DMSO (in buffer or fixative), followed by rapid freezing in -75 degrees C isopentane. Although using a glycerol-DMSO infiltration before conventional freezing with pulverized dry ice or using conventional sucrose infiltration before freezing in isopentane gave better results than sucrose infiltration and dry-ice freezing, only the combination of glycerol-DMSO infiltration and freezing in isopentane produced consistently excellent results and virtually eliminated freezing artifact. To determine the effect of freezing with dry ice or isopentane on the rate of cooling in large blocks of CNS tissue, thermocouples were embedded in an 80-cc block of albumin-gelatin and frozen with the two methods. The rate of cooling (-3.5 degrees C/min) was twice as fast using isopentane.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The origin of corticospinal projections from the premotor areas in the frontal lobe
Dum, R., & Strick, P. (1991) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.11-03-00667.1991 · Cited by 1,442
Petrides, M., & Pandya, D. N. (1999) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00518.x · Cited by 1,068
Cerebellar Projections to the Prefrontal Cortex of the Primate
Middleton, F. A., & Strick, P. L. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-02-00700.2001 · Cited by 1,034
Petrides, M., & Pandya, D. N. (2002) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2001.02090.x · Cited by 882
Boussaoud, D., Ungerleider, L. G., & Desimone, R. (1990) · Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.902960311 · Cited by 634
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosene, D. L., Roy, N. J., & Davis, B. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1986-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1301-1315
- ISSN
- 0022-1554 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-5044
- OpenAlex
- W2158281309
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A cryoprotection method that facilitates cutting frozen sections of whole monkey brains for histological and histochemical processing without freezing artifact. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/34.10.3745909
- The paper
- Rosene, D. L., Roy, N. J., & Davis, B. J. (1986). A cryoprotection method that facilitates cutting frozen sections of whole monkey brains for histological and histochemical processing without freezing artifact. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1177/34.10.3745909
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.