Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 29.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Methods. 2022 Mar 28;19(4):479–485. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01427-0

Extended Data Fig. 3. Comparison of HYBRiD and organic clearing methods.

Extended Data Fig. 3

A. Representative images of hindlimb from PV-Ai9 adult mice processed by the indicated clearing protocols from 6 samples per condition. RI matching media is labeled. B. Quantification of signal-to-background ratio of TdTomato fluorescence signal in PV-Ai9 brain slices processed by HYBRiD (n = 29), uDISCO (n = 22), PEGASOS (n = 28), SHANEL (n = 24). (n indicates numbers of measurements from 4 samples per condition). Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA. C. Quantification of signal-to-background ratio of GFP fluorescence signal in Thy1-GFP-M brain slices processed by HYBRiD (n = 40) or uDISCO (n = 24) (n indicates numbers of measurements from 5 samples per condition). Statistical significance was determined by two-tailed t-test. D. Representative images of hindlimb from Thy1-GFP-M adult mice cleared by HYBRiD or uDISCO (4 samples per group). E. Representative lightsheet images (3D MIP) of forelimb from Thy1-GFP-M adult mice cleared by HYBRiD or uDISCO. F. Quantification of signal to background ratio of YFP fluorescence signal in Thy1-YFP-H brain slices processed by HYBRiD (n = 34) or uDISCO (n = 32) (n indicates numbers of measurements from 5 samples per condition). Statistical significance was determined by two-tailed t-test. G. Representative images of hindlimb from Thy1-YFP-H adult mice cleared by HYBRiD or uDISCO (4 samples per group). H. Representative lightsheet images (3D MIP) of forelimb from Thy1-YFP-H adult mice cleared by HYBRiD or uDISCO from 4 samples per group. Grid size: 3 mm. Scale bar: 1 mm.