Brain - Science topic

Hello! I am currently running a western blot using human AD tissue samples. I prepared these samples over a year and a half ago. I am having trouble standardizing these proteins with Beta Actin. I have ruled out other parameters that could be causing the problem. Therefore, I am wondering if my tissue samples are no longer reliable. In addition to this, I noticed that when i thaw my samples, there is a good amount of precipitation. I just vortex and spin down to mix the samples thoroughly.

For my results, I keep seeing bands stuck in the wells and multiple faded bands. Of course when I first ran these proteins, the beta actin signal was clean and neat.

If someone could please elaborate on what could be causing this. In addition, I would appreciate if you could provide how long samples last and if there is a way to troubleshoot this.

Thank you!

P.S. Samples have been stored in -20 C fridge.

Hi

I use patch clamp technique to do my PhD project. To prepare slides of brain samples, I treat them for one hour at 32 degrees Celsius in the cutting solution, and then I treat them for half an hour at room temperature. But I don't know, sometimes the quality of the tissue is not suitable and most of the neurons are depolarized. Can you guide me?

I learnt about "brain-storming" during my Masters in Technology (Human Resource Development and Management). In the world today, with advanced technology and resources, what is "Brain-storming" and what practices could be used to brain storm?- only legal and ethically moral viewpoints.

I had learnt in 1999-2001 that the best method to brain-storm was at a "round table meeting, where participants ask questions, one after another and one/many of those participants gives answers; the best answer is picked out of the many; on that topic of discussion.

Looking forward to your answers.

Best regards

Aradhana

Consider that you are watching a comedy film for the first time, you watched it completely having laugh so many times. Now, you watched it for the 2nd time, and this time you didn't laugh much and you watched it for the 3rd time and you didn't laugh at all; the humor became repetitive for you. Now say, you are watching a reaction video on YouTube for a particular comedy scene in that movie. And while watching the reaction, you find it comedy and you laugh on the same humor that was repetitive for you when you were watching it alone. We often does thing that are so much influence by others that we don't even realize it's happening. We tend to follow people's reaction, when present in a group of people. You laughed at the reaction video because there were people who were watching the film for the first time and they laughed and based on their reaction you Brain senses it and to prevent you from being "left-out" in the group, your Brain sends a signal to make you laugh, even it is NOT funny for you but still you laugh. From the Brain's perspective, say, you sitting with some people surrounded you and they are laughing out loud; no matter how hard you try you will eventually end up laughing along with them. Your brain will be like: "People are laughing, what's wrong with this guy, he ain't laughing" So your Brain ends up making you laugh. We, people, does so many things often, that are being influenced by the people around us, and we don't even know it's happening, as it happens "sub-consciously" and yet we feel like that we are in the control of ourselves. We have to realize, that we are not in the control of our body, it's the Mind and the Mind is not completely ours. Mind is something beyond any human can ever comprehend. THE ART OF LAUGHING.

My research, in particular my analysis of time perception, suggests that consciousness correlates with a large scale quantum coherent state in the brain in the form of a Bose-Einstein condensate. Aside from the philosophical analysis which, I suggest, proves that this must be the case, there remains the problem of concrete evidence. How can we observe or measure large scale coherent states in the brain.

Hydrocephalus is a condition in which spinal fluid can become trapped in the centre of the brain. In very severe cases where the condition has gone undetected for a considerable period of time the brain can be forced develop around a large fluid filled space in an unusual way. In severe cases this can lead to a condition coined 'shell-brain'. The brain literally occupies a thin layer on the inside of the skull. Some sufferers of this condition can be highly functional.

This layer can be so thin that a light shone in one ear can be detected at the other. So, if we shine a fast burst of light through the brain in this way and measure the time lag between the burst of light and its detection then we can calculate the speed of the light. If the light passes through a BEC then it should be slowed down and this can be measured.

Is this feasible?

Dear friends, I want to work on brain endurance exercise and I need help with this. This topic caught my attention. How can I use this to direct medical students to sports?

I was trying to visualize phospho-ERK and phospho-Cofilin in rat brain sections. However, the images were disappointing and after doing some literature search, I realized that this may be due to degradation of above mentioned proteins by brain phosphatases. The articles mentioned using snap freezing technique. I was thinking of adding phosphatase inhibitors to the perfusion fluid. Is it a good idea?

Hi all,

I am a graduate student at ISU working on the nervous/neuroendocrine system of various insects. While still succeful on my slide mounts, I am struggling with the best way to remove fat bodies clinging to the ganglion of my specimens - specifically Tenebrio molitor. Currently, my process is as follows:

Fresh vivisection, rinse specimen in Formalin, removal of digestive tract etc, rinse again with either Formalin or PBST + 1 or 2% Triton. Some manual removal of fat clinging to CNS - upon complete removal of the nervous system + brain from my specimens, I wash again with PBST +1-2% Triton and attempt to manually peel off remaining fat bodies and tracheal tubes from (typically) the thoracic ganglia and brain using the finest forceps I have in the lab. My little buddy T. molitor doesnt have a lot of tensile strength in the nerve cord, and it is therefore fragile and easily wrecked.

As one can imagine, this gets to be incredibly frusterating at times plus I am unable to completely clear my specimens from fat - which sometimes interferes with fluorescent microscopy post-processing. I also cannot allow my specimens to dry out because I am tagging neuropeptides with fluorescent antibodies.

Maybe I'm screaming into the void here, but does anyone have any good techniques or tips they're willing to share? I just want to get the best imagery I possibly can and minimize non-specific binding.

Thanks!

A new disease is beginning to appear in humans, which is now being remembered as AI.

There are many questions about this disease, but the important point is to control our mind and body with our own hands.

Hello,

I am generating brain organoids. Some media require vitamin B27 +A, but we currently have vitamin B27 minus A vitamin. How bad will it be if we use B27 minus A instead of B27 + vitamin A? We also have retinoic acid. Would it be appropriate if B27 minus A were added (and how much)?

I did IHC using fluorescent labeled secondary antibodies to detect astrocytes with GFAP marker. My sample was fixed frozen mouse brain tissue streatum region. I saw fluorescence in my sample treated without the primary antibody. I noticed that this fluorescence was exactly overlapped the DAPI staining. I used alexafluor488 secondary antibody and mounting media with DAPI. I attached the picture with my staining. My secondary antibodies were at a 1:1000 dilution.

Brain Teaser: I have developed a simple arithmetic problem for a fun. I am sure that after attempting this simple arithmetic problem you will feel some think not right with your brain.

Disclaimer: This Just for fun it is not intended for any medical claim or disrespect anyone. Generative AI tools are highly encouraged to use in solving this type of problem.

Let us consider following sequence.

6, 7,8,10,…

We start with any random number, say the first value in the sequence 6, and increment by one.

Our second value is seven.

For the third value, we incremented the previous value by one, therefore the third value is 8. We ensure that each new number in the sequence is not created by adding or subtracting previous numbers or groups of numbers in the given sequence. Have fun if you are able to get first 10 values, please respond in the comment 😂 😁

Hello,

It is certain that with artificial intelligence things (good or bad) will move forward. But, I fear that the right hemisphere of the human brain (responsible for creativity) will be put on “technical unemployment”, or even, it will be forced to “retire”.

It's my point of view.

Hi,

I have to do GFP immunohistochemistry on a rodent brain tissue at 400um thickness, I have a protocol that works quite well for 40um thick sections which involves overnight incubation at room temperature. Can anyone advice if this is suitable for a 400um thick sections or does this need to be adjusted?

Many thanks,

I am working on a multiplex immunoflurescence brain tissue slides

I am preparing a book discussing the neurological and bio-psychological differences in brain structures that are different in males and females and how that impacts on behavior.

Are we genetically influenced or is it more a function of nurture (set up by genetics and hormonal interjections)? I would apprieiate any current information/research in this area.

Cheers

Morris W. Shanahan

[email protected]

I'm planning an experiment where I can access intracellular cytokines in a specific subregion of the brain in mice. However, this brain region is quite small, maybe 50,000 cells per animal. I know I will need to pool mice but how many would I need to pool? Can I use 500,000 cells? Pooling more than 10 mice wouldn't be feasible.

Thank you!

Hi.

I’ve been unsuccessfully trying to isolate DNA from neurons extracted from adult mouse brains for further downstream analysis.

First I’ve tried sorting neuronal nuclei (Approx. 10⁵ NeuN+ nuclei/sample) (protocol by Nott et al Nat Protoc 2021), followed by DNA isolation and qPCR analysis. However, my PTHrP levels were always undetectable.

Then I moved to commercial kits, and bought the adult neuron isolation kit from Miltenyi. As I read, one would expect approx. 10⁵ isolated neurons per adult brain. I did the whole trinity from Miltenyi: 1. Adult Brain Dissociation Kit, 2. Myelin Removal Beads II, 3. Adult Neuron Isolation Kit. However, again after following the protocols, and immediately isolating the DNA (Nucleospin tissue from MN) I did qPCR (sybr green) and again I did not detect PTHrP in my samples!

I’ve preformed DNA isolation for high yield and concentration in a final 60ul elution volume. Following DNA isolation, the samples were stored at +4C, and the qPCR was done the next morning.

In my control samples from other tissue, I can detect PTHrP which means the qPCR protocol and primers are working fine.

I would be grateful for any help!

Best,

Hello everyone,

To examine oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis parameters in the brain tissue of a Parkinson's model rat, should i select specific regions in the brain or can i use total brain tissue homogenate?

I'm open to any kind of advice.

Thank you in advanve.

For this reason, awake craniotomies are carried out when surgeons are working on expressive brain regions. such as the motor cortex, language areas, etc.

I was wondering if is possible to mimic the optogenetic method to selectively activate inhibitory or excitatory neurons in a given brain region.

I found the optimal antibody dilution and incubation time to stain cells of fish brain sections (50μm thick).

However I need to stain those cells in thicker brain sections and I was wondering what are the criteria to apply, if any, for the antibody dilution and incubation time so I can get results comparable to thinner section staining (i.e. Increasing the incubation time according to the thickness).

Looking forward to your feedback.

lease help me to learn ImageJ software to analyze the immunoflourescence images. i need to analyze cortical neurons in the brain of stroke model of mice.

What is the fundamental nature of consciousness, and how does it arise from the physical processes of the brain?

How does your brain respond? Do you find yourself more interested in negative news than positive news? How about when you spread news about others?

Well, it doesn't necessarily make you a good or a bad person, it is probably how the human brain works....

Hello,

What would be the best procedure right after extracting brain samples from mice, if we plan to analyze the samples later ?

Would it be best to just directly flash freeze the brain tissue in isopentane before storing at -80°, or to homogenize and add some RNase or protease inhibitors before the freezing ?

Additionally, if the samples are sent to external collaborators for the analyses, what is the recommended temperature for shipping, is -20° cold enough ?

Many thanks,

Benjamin Vidal

In this article, they mention that the rat should be kept for 1hr before dissecting. I, however, do not do that in my lab. Is this a standard way ?

in our life, we find most of the obes suffer from poor memory, and much research discusses cholesterol transport from blood to the brain across the blood-brain barrier as oxysterol in spit of cholesterol synthesis in the brain, Cholesterol and fats are very important in the brain tissue for myelinated axons ......................

Hi! I am trying to do RNA extraction from p7 mice's somatosensory cortex and hippocampus. But I am not sure if the RNA was extracted from the correct brain region. I was wondering if there are any standard ways to test it. Thank you.

I recently conducted staining on brain sections of adult zebrafish using Nissl stain. The brains underwent pre-fixation in 4% paraformaldehyde, followed by storage in 75% ethanol at -20°C for a period of time, before being rapidly frozen in methylbutane on dry ice in an OCT mold. Cutting was then performed at a thickness of 20 microns at a temperature of -15°C, using charged slides. The stained slides were mounted with DPX and left to dry at room temperature for three days.

Unfortunately, upon examination at 10X magnification, not the entire slice is in focus. I also attempted to use gelatin-treated slides instead of charged ones, which yielded only slightly improved results.

I suspect that these issues may be attributed to two factors: 1) inadequate adhesion of the brain to the slide due to insufficient stickiness of the slide, and 2) the formation of micro-bubbles between the slide and the slice during the cutting process.

Please share your experiences or suggestions regarding this matter. Thank you!

I've been trying to figure out what happened but it seems I am the only one this has happened to?

Processing:

- transcardial perfusion with 1x PBS followed by 4% PFA

- post-fix brain in 4% PFA for ~24 hours in 4°

- move brain to 30% sucrose in 4° until it sinks (2-3 days)

So all was totally normal but I went to check on one of the brains that had been sitting in 30% sucrose for 3 days and the top part of the sucrose solution was frozen? I thawed it and the brain didn't sink at all, so I'm assuming the brain wasn't able to absorb any sucrose since it froze.

The brains were sitting in the top back of the 4° so it's possible that it's colder back there, but I'm struggling to understand how the cryoprotectant could freeze. I moved them to the front of the fridge after I thawed the frozen one and a day later the frozen brain had sunk to the bottom of the vial.

A couple of questions:

- how did a cryoprotectant freeze at 4°C?

- will the 30% sucrose solution freezing disrupt any signal for immunohistochemistry or disrupt the integrity of the tissue?

Hi all,

I would appreciate any help with the following question:

I have planning to have an Alzheimer's Disease rat brain tissue that I am looking planning to look for markers for amyloid-beta, tau, IBA1, S100, Nestin, CD44 and more.

What is a technique that would allow for these multiple markers at one time?

Given the materialist belief in the existence of the brain by neuroscientists, how come they never heard of the research of Donald Hoffman that proved that evolution doesn't select for truth, but for fitness, as such, consciousness doesn't perceive the world as it is, but perceives a constructed world designed to enhance fitness ? Therefore, there is no brain. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness that helps it gain fitness points.

Short video for those that haven't heard of Donald Hoffman:

I have tried 4 IBA1 antibodies and cannot seem to get good staining. Mice were perfused/fixed with PBS/4%PFA. Brains were placed in PFA overnight, and then moved to 30% sucrose and frozen in OCT after sinking. My sections typically tend to be thicker (30um or 35um), but we do sections on slides instead of free-floating due to less handling and integrity of the structures. All of my antibodies work except for these IBA1 antibodies. I have tried permeabilizing with triton and saponin and got similar results. (Fix for 5 minutes on slide with 2% PFA, perm with 0.3% triton 15 min, block with 10% goat serum 30 minutes, then primary and secondary incubations with blocking serum). Antibodies are spun before addition.

Can anyone advise me as to why these IBA1 antibodies are creating so much background at both 1:100 and 1:1000, and why it is not staining the filaments of the microglia? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

I need to visualize specific regions of mouse brain (e.g., substantia nigra). However, cryosectioning the entire brain tissue is resource intensive and not feasible. Is there a relatively quick and easy way to identify the anatomical location of previously cut brain sections without the use of staining or immunofluoresence?

I recently conducted staining on brain sections of adult zebrafish using Nissl stain. The brains underwent pre-fixation in 4% paraformaldehyde, followed by storage in 75% ethanol at -20°C for a period of time, before being rapidly frozen in methylbutane on dry ice in an OCT mold. Cutting was then performed at a thickness of 20 microns at a temperature of -15°C, using charged slides. The stained slides were mounted with DPX and left to dry at room temperature for three days.

Unfortunately, upon examination at 10X magnification, not the entire slice is in focus. I also attempted to use gelatin-treated slides instead of charged ones, which yielded only slightly improved results.

I suspect that these issues may be attributed to two factors: 1) inadequate adhesion of the brain to the slide due to insufficient stickiness of the slide, and 2) the formation of micro-bubbles between the slide and the slice during the cutting process.

Please share your experiences or suggestions regarding this matter. Thank you!

UPD

I finally found a pattern for these unfocused brain areas - they stem from microbubbles formed during sectioning, which I cannot avoid, unfortunately. In the worst situation, when the bubble covers almost the entire area of the slice, the slices are washed off from the slide. In better cases, I observe the unfocused areas (please see the picture).

Given the amount of abominations that neuroscientists recite, like the dogma that we are nothing but the brain, how come part of their training/Pavlov conditioning, they are not being offered a course in at least Philosophy of Mind ? How come they don't even know what the word "consciousness" means, when it is supposed to be the very subject that they pretend to study ?

A question for neuroscientists: Are psychologists claiming expertise in neuroscience actually have THAT? Or, are they pretending for ascribed status?

Or grasping for justification of their views or "findings" (just to find superficial and crude patterns of activity in the brain SEEMINGLY related to their "findings")? Or, are they just trying to "milk" their imaginations? I clearly see "yes" as the answer to each of the questions. But I am open to persuasive correction.

Can one even believe the "understanding" from brain activity? -- that now seems to be an "understanding" MOST psychologists seem to have ?? It's not empirical, really, it's desperation; and it's not even a good analogy or metaphor.

A magazine I read asked readers if they'd consider a brain implant that improves mental function. Here's my answer. Do you think my ideas are feasible?

Not until they can implant it without surgery. BITS - the binary digits of 1 and 0 - are the basis of AIs (Artificial Intelligences). Why can't the subatomic particles composing everything in the universe each be constructed from trillions of BITS? The electrical wavelengths could be made sufficiently tiny by using overtones (wavelengths that complete many cycles for each cycle in a familiar pulse).

If the implant and the brain are digital, the chip could merely be downloaded and installed. Programmed correctly, that chip could add or delete anything and everything we choose by emulating computers’ copy/paste function to add things; as well as their delete function, to remove things (these feats make me wonder if people really can walk on water and perform other miracles).

We'll also be able to transfer the brain's contents into a clone, another body, or an android - infinite times if necessary - and thus say hello to immortality. When quantum mechanics and General Relativity are united into quantum gravity or the Theory of Everything, we'll have access to everything in space and time.

Hello,

Apologies if this question was addressed somewhere on this site, but I could not find an exact answer after some digging. I was discussing this idea with someone - per the question - about how one adjusts the anterior-posterior (AP; rostral-caudal) coordinate of a brain target in stereotaxic surgery when a rat is older/larger than what a brain atlas is based off of. Specifically, I know that the Paxinos & Watson rat brain atlases are based on a ~270 g Wistar rat, IIRC. But often, researchers end up performing surgeries on rats above this weight - sometimes significantly above. I expect this will add more error to targeting a brain area in the surgery, as the skull seems to get larger in size with age up to a certain point/weight (but, let me know if that is incorrect!). I don't ever recall seeing/hearing a consistent way to address that. This issue applies mainly to adult male rats, as female rats (at least the strains I've used in the past) cap out at 350 g or less, whereas male rats can keep growing much more.

Some factors I've read about / considered that I'm not sure how to factor in:

1. Weight is not always tied to the AP growth of the skull - some rat strains and diet conditions affect body mass without affecting skull growth.

2. I am unsure if the AP skull growth is equal across its whole extent. In other words, if there is some formula people use, like +0.5mm anterior for every +50 or +100 grams body weight, would that be inconsistent across the AP extent of the skull? Would there be more of an effect on targets & coordinates closer to bregma, and less of an effect for those closer to the interaural line (and by proxy lambda)?

Let me know your thoughts - at least I and one other person are wondering about this one.

Is there any recommended protocol (reagents' concentrations) for RT-qPCR in human postmortem brain tissue for the identification of NR2A (NMDAR) subunit? I cannot find neither a protocol let alone ranging concentrations.

What is the immunological test through which we determine the activation of microglia cells?

Almost everything is evolving around patterns:

Sex drive is experienced by a male who anticipates penetrative sex. It is a significant urge that can be difficult for a man to resist. No one has an urge to be penetrated by a penis or any other object. The urge to penetrate arises in the brain of the penetrating male. Women enjoy platonic love, affection and a lover who demonstrates caring behaviours. The balance between these two objectives is encapsulated in the idea of consent. A woman enjoys sex when her emotional needs are met.

We all evolved from the oceans some 3.7 billion years ago during the Archean period (Ohtomo et al. 2013), when the earth had no visible continents at the surface for it was a water world according to our best estimates (Dong et al. 2021). That all vertebrates evolved from fishes should not be a surprise. If we need to find clues about our early evolutionary history, it makes good sense to defer to the common fish. Brains of fishes have all the basic components characteristic of the human brain: a telencephalon (including a hippocampal homologue with which it mediates thinking), a thalamus and the optic tectum (which mediates the transfer of sensory information), and brain stem and spinal cord upon which sits the cerebellum (which converts thinking into executable movement, Tehovnik, Hasabegović, Chen 2024).

In my living room, I have a fish tank that is populated by two species of fish, the tetra fish (the Gymno-corymbus ternetzi, better known as the tetra glofish, which originated from southeast Asia before being genetically modified) and the Corydoras catfish (Corydoras habrosus) which are originally from South America, the Amazon area (see Figure 1). The tetras and the Corydoras catfish are both schooling fish, so they thrive best living in groups of six or more. But the social nature of each is radically different. The tetras are in constant disputes such that they frequently attack each other to establish a hierarchy. After months of such activity, they have yet to finalize a hierarchy, since often the smallest and most junior member of the group will attack (without making contact) the largest member of the group when it ‘feels’ violated by the larger member. This tit-for-tat behavior has gone on daily since the establishment of the aquarium two months ago (see Footnote 1).

The catfish, on the other hand, do not display any overt rivalry and instead work together to collect food from the bottom of the tank. This activity goes on throughout the day with no interruption. When a tetra attempts to attack a catfish, the catfish continues to swim without incident. Since catfish are faster and more agile it is almost impossible for a tetra to interfere with the activities of catfish. Also, each occupies a different sector of the tank: the tetras are mid-level feeders, whereas the catfish are bottom feeders.

So, what does this have to do with humans? Well, if I were looking to come back to life as a fish, I would avoid the high stress confrontational life of the tetra in favor of the busy, but minimally-confrontational life of a catfish. We humans can make choices. If you want to join an overly ambitious Wall Street firm that may require the occasional snort of cocaine to remain competitive then the life of the tetra is for you, but if you prefer a highly-productive life with minimal stress then maybe carpentry is a better choice. I am not sure if fishes have the endowment to make career choices (but maybe humans don’t either).

Footnote 1: The tit-for-tat behavior of tetra fishes reminds me of reports about the Logothetis laboratory in Tübingen, in which commonly housed rhesus monkeys were always testing their place in the social hierarchy, such that at one time when a particular monkey of high status lost his tongue due to an attack, he was thereafter demoted to the lowest status—and we all thought that monkeys could not talk.

Figure 1: View of the fishes being discussed. The brightly colored fishes are genetically engineered tetra fishes (Gymno-corymbus ternetzi), and a pair of Corydalis catfish (Corydoras habrosus) can be seen at the lower right of the figure.

Dear all,

Is brain MRI important to evaluate full term newborn infants with perinatal asphyxia?

Please follow the discussion on:

Best regards,

Floris Groenendaal

Raphael Neelamkavil,

Ph. D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)

Non-causally Non-existent Consciousness?: (1) If consciousness is the totality of whatever happens mostly within the brain and thus causes impacts within and outward the brain, and if any part of consciousness is considered as non-causal, that part must be non-physical and non-existent for Categorial reasons based on the exhaustive implications of To Be (Extension and Change). If this “part” has some impact on other parts, then it must further be shown to be capable of causal and/or non-causal action on causally physical existents. This is what turns theories of non-causality in mind / consciousness into a fiction or false reasoning. The brain receives energy-inputs from phenomena, and has also energy-type activities and energy-type outputs. The totality of such energy-activities happens in the brain. It is not the same as the brain. Why not term the totality of such activites as consciousness? This is not the same as the specific “consciousness-of” being referred to when I refer to something to which my awareness tends. Any specific awareness or the totality of awarenesses is not consciousness, because awareness is awareness-of (consciousness-of), and consciousness as such is a totality of activities in the brain. It is not merely cognitive; it includes many other activities. Nor is consciousness merely a cognitive affair. Many other activities are contained in it; and all these activities together are not the brain. The brain has parts which do not belong to the consciousness per se.

Now, if one insists that consciousness is the same as information and that both are mutually interchangeable or one is part of the other, the following questions arise: (1) If they are the same, would one say that information is in fact in consciousness? (2) When AI transmits information, when we have various sorts of information other than that by way of AI, etc., are we in any manner receiving consciousness in place of information? If one says only that they are at least of the same nature and are not the same, then they have to be differentiated and at the same time connected to each other. But it is accepted by all that information is also in consciousness, and not vice versa. How then is this possible, if they are of the same nature and status?

This is the link to the current website: Brain Balance Fox Valley, WI | Programs for Struggling Kids (brainbalancecenters.com)

Hello,

I am using RNAscope® Multiplex Fluorescent Reagent Kit v2 on 14 mikrometer thick brain sections mounted on super frost slides. Recently, I encountered a problem which was not an issue before. After applying RNAscope hydrogen peroxide, bubbles appear on the sections. As far as I can tell, they form also underneath the sections. As a result, I lose if not all, most of the sections on the slides. I would really appreciate if you can help me to identify the problem and eventually solve it.

Thank you very much!

Best,

Firdevs

I am about to try some ChIP-seq on rat brain tissue. I was wondering if 1 - anyone has a nice protocol that is reliable in their hands and 2 - if it is possible to either flash freeze or fix the tissue for storage BEFORE starting the procedure. Ideally I want to harvest the tissue and store it so that I can do the ChIP-seq procedure in about a month. That would allow me to do multiple samples at once.

..

Happy New Year Dear!

I need to get a less detailed brain atlas than the Brainnetome: I need to combine some areas of the brain on the Brainnetome atlas so that areas belonging to the same area are counted as one zone. By this way I would get an atlas with about 64 zones. As I understand it, the task will be solved by editing the original (Brainnetome) .nii file. Can you tell me how to do this?

Thank you for your help!

Hi!,

I am looking for package to improve typical "low" brain MRI resolutions and convert them to isotropic imaging for researching purposes. I tried SynthSR within freesurfer but it is not currently working on M1 Macs. Any other option available?

In other to evaluate effects of a natural compound brain ischemic stroke . So we need brain ischemic stroke mice model.

Is there any one to help about this?

Egoism !

Starting as a serendipitous side effect in 1967, the mystery of the efficacy of some beta-blockers in the prevention of migraine has not dimmed.

As migraine research carries on as a highly-scattered and increasingly multi-pronged process, it is important to underscore what we know, what we do not know, and what we might have missed by an exclusive pathophysiologic hyperfocus on the brain with varied hypotheses and postulations in terms of pharmacologic beta-blockade (and several other theories, including cortical spreading depression [CSD] ).

There is an intellectual cost for every assumption -- a feature that migraine researchers, have, in general, ignored.

I have attached some photos of what I am observing when I cryosection P0 mouse brains. I have had this issue for a while, and have made many adjustments to fix it, but no luck....

For reference, here is the protocol I have been using:

-Dissect out whole P0 mouse brain at RT in 1x pbs

-drop fix brain in 4% pfa on rocker for one day in 4d fridge (I have used several different pfa solutions--lead to no resolution)

-graded sucrose solutions (15-25-30% sucrose in 1x pbs) over the span of two days in 4d on rocker (at the end of the 2 days, brains have completely sunk)

-embed brains in OCT using a mold in dry-ice bucket with lid (ensuring there is no interface between the brain and oct, i.e. drying off sucrose with KimWipe before swirling brain in oct)

-storing brain in -80 until cryosectioning

-place brain in cryostat ranging from -18 to -20 (i've tried different cutting temps--no luck)

for 30 mins prior to sectioning

After all of this, my sections themselves are coming out flat, but the area containing the tissue is either bunched up, or has a large hole. Also, the brain on the mounting chuck looks dry/flaky. I originally thought that sucrose was not diffusing through the tissue and displacing the pfa, so I have adapted a graded sucrose protocol, which I've done at RT and 4d and no luck. I have tried thawing with thumb before each section, and no luck...

Really any help is appreciated!!

Any chance that a 1xpbs solution with a ph of 7.7 would be an issue? I figured no because it's a buffer, but possible this could be the issue ?

References :

I am generating brain organoids with two different iPSCs cell lines. I have made many times brain organoids with one of these. However, when I start an experiment with other iPSCs cell line, some organoids (majority) have circular protrusion. What could be the reasons?

Nanomaterials are materials with at least one dimension in the nanoscale range (1-100 nm). They have unique physical, chemical, and biological properties that can be exploited for the development of innovative biomaterials for neurology. However, they also pose potential risks and challenges to the safety and efficacy of these applications. In this discussion, we will explore some of the potential and risks of nanomaterials in neurology, such as:

- Nanoparticles for drug delivery and imaging of the brain and spinal cord

- Nanofibers for scaffolds and electrodes for neural tissue engineering and simulation

- Nanosensors for monitoring and modulating neural activity and signaling

- Nanocomposites for enhancing the mechanical and electrical properties of neural implants

What are your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of using nanomaterials in neurology? Do you have any experience or interest in this field? What are some of the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology in medicine?

Brain and other neural degenerative disorders are less common in human female during adolescent as compare to males?

i watch again the biomechanics of body and the future is to be like robocop 2014 (correct future 9neither like

the dumb sir sukerberg that try to kill persons to download the brain into a machine (wrong)

it was published on the simpson on 2014(wrong

and also in the simpsons serie (worng)

chappie(wrong)

I am wondering if there are any available tools that can provide a simulation of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for a controlled set of studies. Are there options with canonical geometries such as cylinders, boxes, etc. or even anatomically realistic simulations like the brain?

If anyone knows of any papers that describe the simulation methodology and also provide the code/toolkit to facilitate usage, I would appreciate the help.

The whole of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. are not the exclusive property of physics, or of any other particular science, or of all the sciences together. Each of them may apply the various general logical, epistemological, and ontological principles in ways suitable to their disciplines, but cannot claim that theirs is the genuine or the possibly best logic, epistemology, ontology, etc.

There is yet another manner, beyond the sciences, wherein (1) the object range and viewpoint range become the broadest possible in epistemology, and (2) the epistemological manner in which the two are connected becomes satisfactory enough to explain both the aspects and the procedures involved between them. This is a philosophical version of epistemology. Even this manner is not complete without including the various logics, epistemologies, and ontologies of the particular sciences.

Before pointing out the special manner in which physics could use the more general aspects of epistemology in itself, let me mention a general trend in science, especially physics. I have seen many students of physics and mathematics mistaking the logical ways in which they do experiments and theories as the same as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics.

They do not even think of the epistemology of physics. The clear reason for this is that their epistemology is a crude correspondence theory of truth, and this is outdated. Take any of the best physicists, and we can see in their works the underlying undefined epistemology being closer to the correspondence theory of truth than anything else. I would like to suggest in the following a clear spine of epistemological rudiments for physics.

The pragmatism and scientism at the foundations of practical physics does not accept anything other than the correspondence theory as prescriptive of all the truths of science. Of course, the amount of finality achieved in truths will be the measure of tenability of their truth-probability. But this is to be reserved to the most general truths derivable from any science or philosophy. Low-level truths are much beyond the purview of correspondence between the objectual and the theoretical. Unaware of these facts, most physicists take the difference lightly.

It is a pity that the students of the sciences and also philosophy students with scientistic orientations even think of their ways of permitting truth correspondence to all their truths as the sole possession of scientists, which they suppose are being usurped from philosophy in the course of the past centuries in such a way that philosophy will have ever less reason to exist, or no more reason to exist. Imaginably, in this pride they are encouraged by their presumption of possession of the scientific temper in an exceptional manner.

More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophy, are a mere waste of time. If you want me to give an example, I suggest that you watch some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking, where he declares philosophy as a waste of time, or as an unscientific affair. The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics, and that philosophers are falsely proud of having logic as their methodology.

The reason why the whole of logic does not belong to the sciences is that the viewpoint from which sensation, thought, and feeling may be exercised in the broadest possible manner is not exhausted even by totaling all the object ranges of all the sciences. Each of them does logic in a manner limited by its object range. How then can their logic be the best possible? There is one and only one general science of which the viewpoint is the broadest. It is that science in which the viewpoint is that of the direct implications of the To Be of Reality-in-total.

Against this backdrop, although the following definition might seem queer for many physicists, mathematicians, and other scientists, there are reasons why I define here epistemology for use in physics. The following definition itself will clarify the reasons:

The epistemology behind physics is (1) the science of justifications (2) for the systemic fact, the systemic manner of achieving, the enhancement of the systemic manner of achieving, and the foundations of systems (3) of rationally derivable and explicable theoretical consequences of human efforts (4) to grasp the connection between physically existent reality and their pertinent realities of all sorts (5) in an asymptotic approach of truth-correspondence from the procedures of knowing (in terms of the pertinent realities of existent realities) onto the physically existent processes of reality, (6) in a spirally broadening and deepening manner of truth probability, (7) which serves to achieve ever better approximations of the epistemological ideal of knowing, namely, Reality-in-general, (8) starting from reality-in-particular, and (9) by use of the highest theoretical generalities pertaining to Reality-in-total and its parts, namely, reality-in-particular.

The epistemology of physics does not take the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. But it must obey the primary implications of To Be and the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. What these implications are, will be treated below, under “3. The Ontology of Physics”. Epistemology in philosophy may be slightly more general than the epistemology of physics, in the sense that philosophy takes the viewpoint of all physical processes that exist and attempt to view every reality from that viewpoint alone. If not, philosophy has no justification for existence.

Naturally, the epistemology of the sciences will not be so general as that of philosophy. But obedience to it is better for the epistemology of physics; and the advantages of such obedience will be seen in the results of such physics and such sciences.

The epistemology of physics, therefore, will attempt to theorize, know, and predict all that exist, but from the viewpoint exclusively of experimentally / empirically verifiable methods based on what is directly or indirectly before us, namely, the physical processes at our reach. The epistemology of systematically and systemically (i.e., systematically of systems of systems … ad libitum) moving in the use of logic from the given existent physical processes to the details of the not immediately given but ever more minute or ever more distant physical existents is the epistemology of physics. The above definition would, in my opinion, be sufficient to cover as broad and minute procedures as possible in physics. Time has come to appropriate it in physics, lest much advantage be lost for too long.

Not that philosophy does not trust this approach of physics. But philosophy looks for the Categorial presuppositions of existence behind all that is verifiable or verified empirically and empirical-theoretically. These presuppositions are the starting points and guiding principles of philosophy. There is a stark difference between a methodology of this kind and the methodology of basing everything on the truths derived from empirical and empirical-theoretical research. Now from this viewpoint you may judge the following suggestions and determine whether the epistemology of doing physical science is as broad as that of philosophizing.

Every moment, our body-brain nexus is continuously but finitely in contact with itself and with a finite extent of the environment, more or less simultaneously, but in differing intensities, no matter however elementary. The primary mode of this is through sensation, using all available and necessary aspects of it as the case may be. Thought and feeling are possible only in continuity with sensation, and never without it.

But one special characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, feeling, and thought can very consciously induct into, and consequently deduce from the presuppositions of, all that exist – no matter whether they are a finite environment or infinite – and all these solely from the finite experience from the finite environment at hand. This seems to be absent in less human living beings.

Moreover, the second, but more forgotten, characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, thought, and feeling are affective, tending to itself and to others, in the broadest sense of the term ‘affective’. It is the manner in which every human being tends in his/her sensation, feeling, and thought. Hence, all processes of knowing will be coloured by affection.

The manner and then the so-constructed broader background in which sensation, feeling, and thought take place is affection, which we term also love in a very general sense. Sensation, feeling, and thought are the three interconnected modes of tending of the body-brain to itself and to the environment, tend always to connect itself with the environment.

But here too the important differentiating characteristic in human body-brains is their capacity to tend to the environment beyond the immediate environments, and further beyond them, etc. ad libitum. There is nothing wrong in theoretically considering that there is the tendency in humans to converting this sort of ad libitum to ad infinitum, irrespective of whether these environments can really go ever broader at infinity in the content of matter-energy within Reality-in-total. Infinity is another term here for generalizing.

Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.

All generalizations tend beyond onto the infinite perfection of the essential aspects of the concepts pertaining to the object-range. Not that the object-range must be infinite. Instead, the tending presumes an infinitization due to the idealization involved in generalizations. This is a kind of infinitization that does not need an infinite Reality-in-total in existence. All the concepts that a human being can use are based in the infinitization of the essential aspects of the concepts in their ideality. But behind these mental ideals there are the ideals, namely, the ontological universals pertaining to the groups (natural kinds) of processual entities in the environment. These are the ideals in the things and are not in us. These too are idealizations at the realm of the natural kinds that form part of Reality-in-total.

Without loving in the sense of tending to, as human do, to the inner and outer environments in their generalities there is no sensation, feeling, and thought. The tending to need not be due to the love of the objects but due to the love of something that pertains to them or to the ontologically universal ideals pertaining to the objects. From this it is clear that the relation between the processual objects and the sensing-feeling-knowing mind is set by the ontological universals in the natural kinds of existent physical processes.

At the part of the mind there should be idealized universals of conceptual quality, because the ontological universals in natural kinds cannot directly enter and form concepts. This shows that the conceptual universals (called connotative universals) are the mental reflections of ontological universals that are in the natural kinds. In short, behind the epistemology of sensation, feeling, and thought there are the ontology and epistemology of loving in the sense of tending to, due to the otherness implied between oneself and the environment.

There may be philosophers and scientists who do not like the idea of love. I say, this is due to the many psychology-related prejudices prevalent in their minds. We need to ask ourselves what the major mode of exercitation of any activity in human beings, and none can doubt the role of love in epistemology. The physical foundations of love too are commonly to be shared with the foundations of other aspects of physical existence.

Such tending by the person is mediated within the person by the connotative universals. Their expression is always in terms of symbols in various languages. These are called denotative universals. Connotative universals get concatenated in the mind in relation to their respective brain elements and form thoughts and feelings. Their expression in language is by the concatenation of denotative universals and get formulated in languages as theories and their parts.

To put in gist the latter part of “2. The Epistemology of Physics”, I suggest that the ontological, connotative, and denotative universals and the love of human agents to these and the very existent processual entities are what facilitate knowledge. The psychological question as to what happens when one has no love does not have any consequence here, because psychology differentiates between love and non-love in terms of certain presumed expressions of love and non-love.

In the case of the natural course of life of humans, the choice is not between love and non-love, but instead, between increasing or decreasing love. We do not speak here of loving other human beings as a matter of ethical action. Instead, the point is that of the natural love that humans have for everything including for sensing, feeling, knowing, etc.

One might wonder here why I did not discuss mathematics as an epistemologically valid tool of physics and other sciences. I have already dealt with this aspect in many other discussion texts in ResearchGate, and hence do not expatiate on it here.

some metabolic products that produced by probiotics such as SCFA and acetolactic how go and effects on brain function.

Could you explain this scientific theory in a way that an ordinary person can understand?

Hello, i have immunoflurecent staining for brain tissues on slides. I used hydrophobic pen and hard set mountain media. The slides kept overnight to dry for two days but they’re still wet?

Hello every bio-field expert, professor, researcher:

Our experiment design aims to induce the immune system, to affect the tumor cell progress. In the previous study, we found a connection between programmed death proteins and the immune system, our final goal was to combine them with monoclonal antibodies or adoptive T-cell therapy.

This time, we're planning to knock out a "key gene" to do the experiment, if this cell is not that sensitive to induce Immunogenic, our effectiveness would be lower than expected.

Hopefully, can get your help, thanks for your reading.

In order to measure the Blood Brain barrier permeability I am trying to inject Evans blue dye and after six hours Ill take the mouse brain but I need to remove the Evans blue out of the blood vessels first,any recommendations please.

Experience is the food of the mind.

Research and observation is the existence of the universe.

Nothing is out there without the observer.

Fine if the universe exists without the observer. For whom does it exist? You can't cut the universe off from the observer. After all, that's why we're here, for the universe to exist. This universe out there outside our brain doesn't have the form that our brain presents to us. There is no light and colors without the eye, hearing without the ear, taste without the tongue, touch without the body. Outside of our brain there is only frequency energy that without the conversion of frequencies from our brain into something else none of this would exist. Without a brain we can't even perceive energy. We live in a matrix of our senses. We are the very nature of energy, which lives through us.

Okay, let's get to the hard part. Do you at least understand that the world we live in doesn't exist without your senses? So without us how can there be anything imaginary that our brain creates? Fine the frequencies exist, but who do they exist for?

What is it, and where does energy come from; which designs, constructs and moves frequencies molecules atoms everything? Is it God?

The complex interplay between the human brain, mind, and consciousness bears a deep connection to the domains of physical science and mathematics. This connection illuminates how these fundamental aspects of human existence find common ground with empirical investigation and quantitative analysis. Exploring the multifaceted relationship between these aspects of human knowledge and the exacting disciplines of physical science and mathematics, and the relationship between mind and time.

Hi! I am trying to extract protein from brain samples and I want to use 2% SDS lysis buffer, I know the ingredients but I can't figure out the exact amount of those ingredients. Can someone help me with this?

Ingredients

Hi everybody,

I have two experimental groups (vehicle- vs drug-treated) and two time points. I plotted correlated activity of different brain regions in each group, at each time point. Now, I would like to determine whether the correlated brain activity statistically differs between the two groups and two time points (so 2x2 design, but no matching or pairing across time). So far, I could not find a method to compare the strength of the correlations between two (or more) groups. Does anyone have experience in this?

Many thanks!

Best, Kübra

Can we consider consciousness as a type of energy that supplies the brain with energy, given that the brain has very high resistance, up to 60 ohms, and in order to generate small currents within the brain, we would need a very high voltage? Additionally, Newton's first law states that an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Is it possible that consciousness could be a source of energy for the brain? Could this be a valid possibility?

I had to perform an LC-MS to check the post translaltional modifications of my histone isolated samples from mice brain. Can anyone let me know that how to perform desalting of my sample for LC-MS...????

Join, and show advocacy to the European Brain Council (EBC) which comprises nine member organizations, which are two of them are patient groups, and the other seven groups represent the research community, including the EAN and those working in mental health dedicated to overcoming socioeconomic burden on society from brain-related problems worldwide embarking from the EBC humanity efforts:

“We want to speak with one voice […] the individual funding organizations were all trying to do their advocacy, reaching out to the commission,” she said. “But it’s hard to meet politicians. If you have a common goal that all these organizations would support, it’s great to have one voice and one representative.”

“We want to translate that knowledge into new breakthroughs that can really help the patient,” she said. The Re-Thinking series, which is a follow-on from the value of treatment studies, offers to rethink diseases such as migraine, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. “Our target audiences are those involved in policies, to tell them where we’re at.” The Brain Innovation Days will take place on 26-27 October and are meant to be a platform where the community can interact with innovators. The EBC is also leading a global partnership in brain research, to move its activities outside of Europe and to a broader scale.

European advocacy in the brain space