4.7 Article

Correlative Electron and Fluorescence Microscopy of Magnetotactic Bacteria in Liquid: Toward In Vivo Imaging

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep06854

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-07CH11358]
  3. Department of Energy Office of Science Early Career Research Award, Biomolecular Materials Program
  4. Max Planck Society
  5. ERC (Project MB2) [256915]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetotactic bacteria biomineralize ordered chains of uniform, membrane-bound magnetite or greigite nanocrystals that exhibit nearly perfect crystal structures and species-specific morphologies. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is a critical technique for providing information regarding the organization of cellular and magnetite structures in these microorganisms. However, conventional TEM can only be used to image air-dried or vitrified bacteria removed from their natural environment. Here we present a correlative scanning TEM (STEM) and fluorescence microscopy technique for imaging viable cells of Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1 in liquid using an in situ fluid cell TEM holder. Fluorescently labeled cells were immobilized on microchip window surfaces and visualized in a fluid cell with STEM, followed by correlative fluorescence imaging to verify their membrane integrity. Notably, the post-STEM fluorescence imaging indicated that the bacterial cell wall membrane did not sustain radiation damage during STEM imaging at low electron dose conditions. Weinvestigated the effects of radiation damage and sample preparation on the bacteria viability and found that approximately 50% of the bacterial membranes remained intact after an hour in the fluid cell, decreasing to similar to 30% after two hours. These results represent a first step toward in vivo studies of magnetite biomineralization in magnetotactic bacteria.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据