4.3 Article

The surface topography of the choroid plexus. Environmental, low and high vacuum scanning electron microscopy

期刊

ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER
卷 193, 期 3, 页码 197-204

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2011.02.016

关键词

ESEM; Wet-mode; Low vacuum SEM; High vacuum SEM; Specimen preparation; Tissue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) allows the examination of hydrated and dried specimens without a conductive metal coating which could be advantageous in the imaging of biological and medical objects. The aim of this study was to assess the performance and benefits of wet-mode and low vacuum ESEM in comparison to high vacuum scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using the choroid plexus of chicken embryos as a model, an organ of the brain involved in the formation of cerebrospinal fluid in vertebrates. Specimens were fixed with or without heavy metals and examined directly or after critical point drying with or without metal coating. For wet mode ESEM freshly excised specimens without any pretreatment were also examined. Conventional high vacuum SEM revealed the characteristic morphology of the choroid plexus cells at a high resolution and served as reference. With low vacuum ESEM of dried but uncoated samples the structure appeared well preserved but charging was a problem. It could be reduced by a short beam dwell time and averaging of images or by using the backscattered electron detector instead of the gaseous secondary electron detector. However, resolution was lower than with conventional SEM. Wet mode imaging was only possible with tissue that had been stabilized by fixation. Not all surface details (e.g. microvilli) could be visualized and other structures, like the cilia, were deformed. In summary, ESEM is an additional option for the imaging of bio-medical samples but it is problematic with regard to resolution and sample stability during imaging. (C) 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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