The brains were dissected out 1 h after ICV injection with 3 × 10−6 M AngII alone (n = 5), or 3 × 10−5 M ANP in the presence of AngII (n = 5). The procedure for the immunohistochemistry was previously described21,52. The brains were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in phosphate buffer (PB) and embedded in Paraplast (McCormick Scientific, Richmond, IL, USA). Serial sections were prepared at 7 μm and mounted onto MAS-coated slides (Matsunami Glass, Osaka, Japan). The sections were deparaffinized, rehydrated and then rinsed in phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The sections were immersed in methanol containing 0.3% H2O2 for 30 min at room temperature. The sections were rinsed thoroughly in PBS after the antigen activation and then pretreated with a blocking solution (2% normal goat serum, 0.01% NaN3 in PBS) for 1 h at room temperature and incubated with a polyclonal antibody raised against human c-Fos (1:200, sc-253, SantaCruz, Dallas, TX, USA) for 12 h at 4 °C. Specificity of the antibody against c-Fos protein of the mudskipper was previously confirmed by Western blotting analysis52. After rinsing in PBS, the sections were treated with ABC Elite kit (PK-6101, Vector, Burlingame, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instruction. The sections were rinsed in 0.1 M PB and immersed in 0.01% 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (DAB) in PB for 3 min to intensify colorization and then incubated in 0.01% DAB solution containing 0.01% H2O2 for 3 min in dark. Finally, the sections were rinsed in PB and distilled water, and immunoreactive c-Fos signals were examined and photographed using a digital camera (DMX1200; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). The photomicrographs were binarized by graphic software Image J (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/) and the number of c-Fos positive neurons was counted manually and compared between the cohorts. Every third section was analysed in order not to count positive cells repeatedly.
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.