4.6 Article

Quantitating morphological changes in biological samples during scanning electron microscopy sample preparation with correlative super-resolution microscopy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176839

关键词

-

资金

  1. Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
  2. FEI company
  3. M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust
  4. Prospect Creek Foundation
  5. OHSU Knight Cancer Institute
  6. Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  7. W. M. Keck Foundation
  8. Department of the Army Award [W81XWH-07-1-0663]
  9. Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sample preparation is critical to biological electron microscopy (EM), and there have been continuous efforts on optimizing the procedures to best preserve structures of interest in the sample. However, a quantitative characterization of the morphological changes associated with each step in EM sample preparation is currently lacking. Using correlative EM and superresolution microscopy (SRM), we have examined the effects of different drying methods as well as osmium tetroxide (OsO4) post-fixation on cell morphology during scanning electron microscopy (SEM) sample preparation. Here, SRM images of the sample acquired under hydrated conditions were used as a baseline for evaluating morphological changes as the sample went through SEM sample processing. We found that both chemical drying and critical point drying lead to a mild cellular boundary retraction of 60 nm. Post-fixation by OsO4 causes at least 40 nm additional boundary retraction. We also found that coating coverslips with adhesion molecules such as fibronectin prior to cell plating helps reduce cell distortion from OsO4 post-fixation. These quantitative measurements offer useful information for identifying causes of cell distortions in SEM sample preparation and improving current procedures.

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

4.6
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