Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Scanning Electron Microscopy01:07

Scanning Electron Microscopy

5.4K
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) is used to study the surface features of a sample by using an electron beam that scans the sample surface in a two-dimensional manner. Typically, areas between ~1 centimeter to 5 micrometers in width can be imaged. SEM can be used to image bacteria, viruses, tissues as well as larger samples like insects. Conventional SEM gives a magnification ranging from 20X to 30,000X and spatial resolution of 50 to 100 nanometers.
Fundamental Principles
Accelerated...
5.4K
Electronic Structure of Atoms02:28

Electronic Structure of Atoms

28.2K

An atom comprises protons and neutrons, which are contained inside the dense, central core called the nucleus, with electrons present around the nucleus. Taking into account the wave–particle duality of electrons and the uncertainty in position around the nucleus, quantum mechanics provides a more accurate model for the atomic structure. It describes atomic orbitals as the regions around the nucleus where electrons of discrete energy exist, characterized by four quantum...
28.2K
Overview of Electron Microscopy01:25

Overview of Electron Microscopy

13.4K
The wavelengths of visible light ultimately limit the maximum theoretical resolution of images created by light microscopes. Most light microscopes can only magnify 1000X, and a few can magnify up to 1500X. Electrons, like electromagnetic radiation, can behave like waves, but with wavelengths of 0.005 nm, they produce significantly greater resolution up to 0.05 nm as compared to 500 nm for visible light. An electron microscope (EM) can create a sharp image that is magnified up to 2,000,000X.
13.4K
Transmission Electron Microscopy01:15

Transmission Electron Microscopy

6.9K
In 1931, physicist Ernst Ruska—building on the idea that magnetic fields can direct an electron beam just as lenses can direct a beam of light in an optical microscope—developed the first prototype of the electron microscope. This development led to the development of the field of electron microscopy. In the transmission electron microscope (TEM), electrons are produced by a hot tungsten element and accelerated by a potential difference in an electron gun, which gives them up to 400...
6.9K
Immunogold Electron Microscopy01:20

Immunogold Electron Microscopy

5.4K
Immunoelectron microscopy utilizes immunogold labeling of endogenous proteins with specific antibodies to detect and localize these proteins in cells and tissues. The procedure provides insights into the distribution and quantification of protein under different stimulation conditions offering clues about their functions. Conjugating highly electron-dense gold particles with primary or secondary antibodies allow antigen detection on and within cells, with high resolution and specificity.
5.4K
Cryo-electron Microscopy01:28

Cryo-electron Microscopy

4.2K
Conventional electron microscopy (EM) involves dehydration, fixation, and staining of biological samples, which distorts the native state of biological molecules and results in several artifacts. Also, the high-energy electron beam damages the sample and makes it difficult to obtain high-resolution images. These issues can be addressed using cryo-EM, which uses frozen samples and gentler electron beams. The technique was developed by Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson, for...
4.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reorganization of actin in K-562 and HL-60 cells treated with taxol.

Neoplasma·2006
Same author

Reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton in the protruding lamellae of human fibroblasts.

Cell motility and the cytoskeleton·2001
Same author

Effect of interleukin-2 on CD95 (Fas/APO-1) expression in fresh chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and mantle cell lymphoma cells: relationship to ex vivo chemoresponse.

Anticancer research·2000
Same author

CD79a detected by ZL7.4 separates chronic lymphocytic leukemia from mantle cell lymphoma in the leukemic phase.

Cytometry·1999
Same author

Distribution of cytoskeletal proteins in neomycin-induced protrusions of human fibroblasts.

Experimental cell research·1998
Same author

Ex vivo cytotoxic drug evaluation by DiSC assay to expedite identification of clinical targets: results with 8-chloro-cAMP.

British journal of cancer·1997

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 22, 2026

Visualizing Membrane Ruffle Formation using Scanning Electron Microscopy
08:05

Visualizing Membrane Ruffle Formation using Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published on: May 27, 2021

3.2K

Improved methods for preserving macromolecular structures and visualizing them by fluorescence and scanning electron

P B Bell1, B Safiejko-Mroczka

  • 1Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman 73019, USA.

Scanning Microscopy
|September 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary

This study compares different methods for preserving and visualizing cytoskeletal structures in cultured cells using fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. Researchers tested various fixatives, crosslinking agents, and permeabilization methods to determine which protocols yield the best results for labeling and morphology. They found that prefixation with dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) and extraction with Triton X-100 in a stabilizing buffer provides the best overall preservation and labeling for both fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. While other methods may maximize labeling for specific structures, this protocol offers the best balance of structural preservation and labeling efficiency. The findings suggest that this method should be considered the standard for preserving and visualizing macromolecular structures.

Keywords:
cytoskeletal structuresfixation methodselectron microscopyfluorescence labeling

Frequently Asked Questions

More Related Videos

Analysis of β-Amyloid-induced Abnormalities on Fibrin Clot Structure by Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy
06:27

Analysis of β-Amyloid-induced Abnormalities on Fibrin Clot Structure by Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published on: November 30, 2018

9.7K
Focussed Ion Beam Milling and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Brain Tissue
08:57

Focussed Ion Beam Milling and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Brain Tissue

Published on: July 6, 2011

28.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 22, 2026

Visualizing Membrane Ruffle Formation using Scanning Electron Microscopy
08:05

Visualizing Membrane Ruffle Formation using Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published on: May 27, 2021

3.2K
Analysis of β-Amyloid-induced Abnormalities on Fibrin Clot Structure by Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy
06:27

Analysis of β-Amyloid-induced Abnormalities on Fibrin Clot Structure by Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published on: November 30, 2018

9.7K
Focussed Ion Beam Milling and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Brain Tissue
08:57

Focussed Ion Beam Milling and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Brain Tissue

Published on: July 6, 2011

28.7K

Area of Science:

  • Cell biology techniques
  • Microscopy methods
  • Cytoskeletal research

Background:

Understanding how to preserve macromolecular structures is essential for accurate microscopic analysis. Prior research has shown that various fixation and permeabilization methods can affect labeling efficiency and structural integrity. However, no prior work had resolved the optimal combination of fixation and extraction for both fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. This gap motivated the need to systematically compare different protocols. Establishing a reliable method is crucial for visualizing cytoskeletal components like actin and tubulin. While some methods maximize labeling, others may better preserve morphology. The challenge lies in balancing these two aspects. This study addresses the uncertainty surrounding the best approach for preserving and visualizing intracellular structures. By evaluating multiple fixatives and extraction conditions, the research aims to clarify which procedures yield the best results for both labeling and morphology.

Purpose Of The Study:

The study aimed to identify the optimal procedures for preserving cytoskeletal and macromolecular structures in cultured cells. The specific problem addressed is the variability in fixation and extraction methods that affect labeling and morphology. The motivation stems from the need to balance maximal labeling with structural preservation. Researchers compared different fixatives, crosslinking agents, and permeabilization methods. The goal was to determine which combination provides the best results for both fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. This approach allows for a comprehensive evaluation of each method's strengths and limitations. The study focuses on actin and tubulin labeling as key indicators of cytoskeletal integrity. By systematically testing various protocols, the researchers sought to clarify the best practices for preserving and visualizing these structures.

Main Methods:

The researchers evaluated the effects of various fixation and extraction methods on cultured cells. They tested different fixatives, including 4% paraformaldehyde and dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate). Permeabilization was performed using ethanol or Triton X-100 in stabilizing or high salt buffers. Fluorescence labeling was done using phalloidin and anti-tubulin antibodies. Scanning electron microscopy was used to assess morphological preservation. The study compared labeling efficiency and structural integrity across multiple conditions. Each method was tested for its ability to preserve macromolecular structures. The results were analyzed to determine which protocols provided the best labeling and morphology.

Main Results:

Maximal labeling of F-actin with phalloidin was achieved using 4% paraformaldehyde fixation and methanolic phalloidin labeling of unextracted cells. Maximal tubulin labeling required prefixation with paraformaldehyde or dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) followed by extraction in ethanol or Triton in high salt buffer. For both fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy, prefixation with dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) and extraction with Triton X-100 in a stabilizing buffer provided the best results. This method preserved morphology while allowing protein labeling with specific probes. Other methods showed maximal labeling for specific structures but failed to preserve overall morphology. The combination of dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) and Triton X-100 in stabilizing buffer outperformed other approaches. This protocol allowed both qualitative and quantitative analysis of macromolecular structures. The results suggest that this method is optimal for preserving and visualizing cytoskeletal components.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that prefixation with dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) and extraction with Triton X-100 in a stabilizing buffer is the best method for preserving macromolecular structures. This approach allows for both efficient labeling and morphological preservation. The study suggests that this protocol is suitable for both fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. The results indicate that this method outperforms others in preserving structural integrity while allowing protein labeling. The authors claim that this method is optimal for both qualitative and quantitative studies. Other methods may provide maximal labeling for specific structures but lack overall preservation. The findings suggest that this protocol is the most reliable for visualizing cytoskeletal components. The authors conclude that this method should be considered the standard for preserving and visualizing macromolecular structures.

Failed At:

2026-07-14T07:29:44.224198+00:00

Prefixation with dithiobis (succinimidylpropionate) and extraction with Triton X-100 in a stabilizing buffer provides optimal preservation and labeling.

Fixing cells in 4% paraformaldehyde and labeling with methanolic phalloidin yields maximal F-actin labeling.

It crosslinks proteins, preserving structural integrity while allowing for subsequent labeling with specific probes.

Triton X-100 in a stabilizing buffer helps permeabilize cells while preserving macromolecular structures.

It provides excellent morphological preservation while allowing for protein labeling with specific probes.

The study suggests that the proposed method is optimal for preserving and visualizing cytoskeletal structures.