Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:57:25.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Combining Cryo and Conventional Specimen Preparation Methods to Improve the Preservation of Cell Ultrastructure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Kent L. McDonald*
Affiliation:
Electron Microscope Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA94720-3330
Get access

Extract

Poor specimen preparation techniques affect all subsequent EM imaging operations, whether simple descriptions or sophisticated computer reconstruction and analysis. Therefore, EM researchers continue to put effort into developing methods that will preserve the fine structure of the cell as close to the native state as possible. Much attention has been paid to the primary or initial fixation because this is probably the singlemost important step in EM processing. Evidence from a variety of sources. shows that cryofixation is more likely to give good preservation than conventional chemical fixation for most cell types. Among the choices for cryofixation, high pressure freezing is probably the best for most samples, even those that are small enough to be frozen by other means.

Dehydration is another key point in processing where high resolution structure can be lost or distorted, though it has received relatively little attention compared to primary fixation.

Type
Technologists Forum: Cryo Microscopy
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Echlin, P.. Low Temperature Microscopy and Analysis, New York, Plenum (1992) 539 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Steinbrecht, R.A. & Zierold, K., Eds., Cryotechniques in Biological Electron Microscopy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1987), 297 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.McDonald, K., Meth. Molec. Biol. 117(1999)77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Carlemalm, E. et al, J. Microscopy 126(1982)123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.McDonald, K., Meth. Cell Biol. 44(1994)411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar