Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026

Immunohistochemistry Techniques to Analyze Cellular Proliferation and Neurogenesis in Rats Using the Thymidine Analog BrdU
Published on: September 9, 2020
Three Optimized Methods for In Situ Quantification of Progenitor Cell Proliferation in Embryonic Kidneys Using BrdU,
Rosalie E O'Hara1, Michel G Arsenault1, Blanca P Esparza Gonzalez1
1Department of Biomedical Sciences, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada.
Background:
Nephron progenitor cells derived from the metanephric mesenchyme undergo a complex balance of self-renewal and differentiation throughout kidney development to give rise to the mature nephron. Cell proliferation is an important index of progenitor population dynamics. However, accurate and reproducible in situ quantification of cell proliferation within progenitor populations can be technically difficult to achieve due to the complexity and harsh tissue treatment required of certain protocols.
Objective:
To optimize and compare the performance of the 3 most accurate S phase-specific labeling methods used for in situ detection and quantification of nephron progenitor and ureteric bud cell proliferation in the developing kidney, namely, 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU), 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA).
Methods:
Protocols for BrdU, EdU, and PCNA were optimized for fluorescence labeling on paraformaldehyde-fixed, paraffin-embedded mouse kidney tissue sections, with co-labeling of nephron progenitor cells and ureteric bud with Six2 and E-cadherin antibodies, respectively. Image processing and analysis, including quantification of proliferating cells, were carried out using free ImageJ software.
Results:
All 3 methods detect similar ratios of nephron progenitor and ureteric bud proliferating cells. The BrdU staining protocol is the lengthiest and most complex protocol to perform, requires tissue denaturation, and is most subject to interexperimental signal variability. In contrast, bound PCNA and EdU protocols are relatively more straightforward, consistently yield clear results, and far more easily lend themselves to co-staining; however, the bound PCNA protocol requires substantive additional postexperimental analysis to distinguish the punctate nuclear PCNA staining pattern characteristic of proliferating cells.
Conclusions:
All 3 markers exhibit distinct advantages and disadvantages in quantifying cell proliferation in kidney progenitor populations, with EdU and PCNA protocols being favored due to greater technical ease and reproducibility of results associated with these methods.
More Related Videos
06:44Assessment of Global DNA Double-Strand End Resection using BrdU-DNA Labeling coupled with Cell Cycle Discrimination Imaging
Published on: April 28, 2021
22:49Optimized Staining and Proliferation Modeling Methods for Cell Division Monitoring using Cell Tracking Dyes
Published on: December 13, 2012
Related Concept Videos
08:37Immunohistochemistry Techniques to Analyze Cellular Proliferation and Neurogenesis in Rats Using the Thymidine Analog BrdU
06:44Assessment of Global DNA Double-Strand End Resection using BrdU-DNA Labeling coupled with Cell Cycle Discrimination Imaging
22:49Optimized Staining and Proliferation Modeling Methods for Cell Division Monitoring using Cell Tracking Dyes
08:06Isolation and Culture of Cells from the Nephrogenic Zone of the Embryonic Mouse Kidney
08:00Derivation of Cardiac Progenitor Cells from Embryonic Stem Cells
03:09Generating Neural Progenitors from Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells by the Hanging Drop Method