4.3 Article

Preserving elemental content in adherent mammalian cells for analysis by synchrotron-based x-ray fluorescence microscopy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY
Volume 265, Issue 1, Pages 81-93

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jmi.12466

Keywords

Biological; cryomicroscopy; specimen preparation; x-ray microanalysis; x-ray microscopy

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM104530]
  2. US DOE [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Trace metals play important roles in biological function, and x-ray fluorescence microscopy (XFM) provides a way to quantitatively image their distribution within cells. The faithfulness of these measurements is dependent on proper sample preparation. Using mouse embryonic fibroblast NIH/3T3 cells as an example, we compare various approaches to the preparation of adherent mammalian cells for XFM imaging under ambient temperature. Direct side-by-side comparison shows that plunge-freezing-based cryoimmobilization provides more faithful preservation than conventional chemical fixation for most biologically important elements including P, S, Cl, K, Fe, Cu, Zn and possibly Ca in adherent mammalian cells. Although cells rinsed with fresh media had a great deal of extracellular background signal for Cl and Ca, this approach maintained cells at the best possible physiological status before rapid freezing and it does not interfere with XFM analysis of other elements. If chemical fixation has to be chosen, the combination of 3% paraformaldehyde and 1.5 % glutaraldehyde preserves S, Fe, Cu and Zn better than either fixative alone. When chemically fixed cells were subjected to a variety of dehydration processes, air drying was proved to be more suitable than other drying methods such as graded ethanol dehydration and freeze drying. This first detailed comparison for x-ray fluorescence microscopy shows how detailed quantitative conclusions can be affected by the choice of cell preparation method.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available