I've had some difficulties using antibodies to BrdU, and the protocol necessitates injecting animals with BrdU for 3-5 days before perfusion. In my hands, an antibody to Ki-67 protein reliably identifies newborn neurons without these difficulties (see my abstract from the last Neuroscience meetings in November in New Orleans)
John K. Young
Department of Anatomy
Howard University, Washington DC
Hi Jaun. BrdU is very useful as you can (for example) label which cells were proliferating at a specific time, and then leave the animals to age and fate map the cells and add various analogs such as EdU to see how proliferation changes over time. Ki67 is also useful, but can only tell you about the proliferation at the specific point in time you harvested the tissue (and it has been suggested it is also expressed by quiescent cells not just proliferating cells- J. Cell. Physiol. 206:6240635,2006). This paper has good materials and methods and the group uses BrdU a lot to characterise the effects of irradiation in their model, I used to work downstairs from them. What is the aim of your experiment and do you need advice on using and detecting BrdU, or quantification of the immuno?
HI Bobbi Fleiss! Thank ypou for your useful answer. let me tell you i already have the immunofluorescences and histochemistries for brdu and other proliferative markers as ki-67. but i want to show my results as "number for BrdU+ cells/mm2 in dentate gyrus" the problem is i dont have a standar protocol to quantify this result. do you know the general ideas to do it? thank you! :)
Hi Juan, I would refer to the paper that I attached above. It is critical to be able to identify the total area of the DG, which you can do by taking a low power image and then tracing around with a program such as Image J ( and calculating together with info on scale, taken by photographing a haemocytometer). Then, if you count every positive cell in the DG (from higher mag non-overlapping images) you will have the total BrDu+ in the DG. I do NOT suggest that you figure out the mm2 of a single image and try and do part of the DG- it is small, and irregular and this technique introduces error. Ideally, you would count the numbers in serial sections as per the paper, do you have serial sections, or consecutive ?
Hi Juan, I agree with Bobbi's first post. Calculating the number of cells (or density of cells) on a single image does not return a result that is necessarily representative of the entire region of the DG that stretches across many sections. Stereology (utilized in the paper Bobbi attached) employs systematic random sampling through the entire region of interest and easy to follow counting rules to ensure that the number you obtained is unbiased and precise. [I'm giving a webinar on Thursday, March 28th on stereology concepts and probe selection, if you'd like to learn more: http://www.mbfbioscience.com/upcoming-webinars ]
Counting cell profiles from 2D images (via ImageJ or manually) leads to bias because you are not differentiating between whole cells and parts of cells (cell profiles). Stereologic counting ensures that you have the opportunity to count each cell once and only once. Have you already prepared your tissue?
use Image J to count the BrdU positive cells by fixing threshold ,, another alternate is manually count number by using adobe photoshop CS6.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience
- Neuroanatomy