4.7 Article

A Comparative Study of Sample Preparation for Staining and Immunodetection of Plant Cell Walls by Light Microscopy

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01505

Keywords

cellwall-degrading enzyme; embedding; fluorescence; immunodetection; microscopy; polysaccharide; sectioning; toluidine blue

Categories

Funding

  1. U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  3. U. S. Department of Energy
  4. European Union through the 7th Framework Program for research
  5. Horizon research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie [FP7-267196-MSCA-COFUND-AgreenSkills, H2020-708329-MSCA-IF-2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Staining and immunodetection by light microscopy are methods widely used to investigate plant cell walls. The two techniques have been crucial to study the cell wall architecture in planta, its deconstruction by chemicals or cell wall-degrading enzymes. They have been instrumental in detecting the presence of cell types, in deciphering plant cell wall evolution and in characterizing plant mutants and transformants. The success of immunolabeling relies on how plant materials are embedded and sectioned. Agarose coating, wax and resin embedding are, respectively, associated with vibratome, microtome and ultramicrotome sectioning. Here, we have systematically carried out a comparative analysis of these three methods of sample preparation when they are applied for cell wall staining and cell wall immunomicroscopy. In order to help the plant community in understanding and selecting adequate methods of embedding and sectioning for cell wall immunodetection, we review in this article the advantages and limitations of these three methods. Moreover, we offer detailed protocols of embedding for studying plant materials through microscopy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available