Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:59:23.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy Imaging of Giant Cells from Giant Cell Tumors of Bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2019

Asit Ranjan Mridha ,
Indu Barwal ,
Abhishek Gupta Open the ORCID record for Abhishek Gupta [Opens in a new window] ,
Abdul Majeed ,
Adarsh W. Barwad ,
Venkatesan Sampath Kumar ,
Shivanand Gamanagatti  and
Subhash Chandra Yadav
Asit Ranjan Mridha
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Indu Barwal
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Abhishek Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Abdul Majeed
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Adarsh W. Barwad
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Venkatesan Sampath Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Shivanand Gamanagatti
Affiliation:
Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
Subhash Chandra Yadav*
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
*
*Author for correspondence: Subhash Chandra Yadav, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is a common benign lesion that causes significant morbidity due to the failure of modern medical and surgical treatment. Surface ultra-structures of giant cells (GCs) may help in distinguishing aggressive tumors from indolent GC lesions. This study aimed to standardize scanning electron microscopic (SEM) imaging of GC from GCT of bone. Fresh GCT collected in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium was washed to remove blood, homogenized, or treated with collagenase to isolate the GCs. Mechanically homogenized and collagenase-digested GCs were imaged on SEM after commonly used drying methodologies such as air-drying, tetramethylsilane (TMS)-drying, freeze-drying, and critical point-drying (CPD) for the optimization of sample processing. The collagenase-treated samples yielded a greater number of isolated GC and showed better surface morphology in comparison to mechanical homogenization. Air-drying was associated with marked cell shrinkage, and freeze-dried samples showed severe cell damage. TMS methodology partially preserved the cell contour and surface structures, although the cell shape was distorted. GC images with optimum surface morphology including membrane folding and microvesicular structures on the surface were observed only in collagenase-treated and critical point-dried samples. Collagenase digestion and critical point/TMS-drying should be performed for optimal SEM imaging of individual GCs.

Keywords

boneGCTgiant cell tumorscanning electron microscopySEM of giant cell
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 1376 - 1382
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2019 

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

Anderson, TF (1951). Techniques for the preservation of three dimensional structure in preparing specimens for the electron microscope. Trans NY Acad Sci 13, 130–134.Google Scholar
Aparisi, T (1978). Giant cell tumor of bone. Electron microscopic and histochemical investigations. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 173, 1–38.Google Scholar
Arbeitsgemeinschaft, K, Becker, WT, Dohle, J, Bernd, L, Braun, A, Cserhati, M, Enderle, A, Hovy, L, Matejovsky, Z, Szendroi, M, Trieb, K & Tunn, PU (2008). Local recurrence of giant cell tumor of bone after intralesional treatment with and without adjuvant therapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(5), 1060–1067.Google Scholar
Atkins, GJ, Kostakis, P, Vincent, C, Farrugia, AN, Houchins, JP, Findlay, DM, Evdokiou, A & Zannettino, AC (2006). RANK expression as a cell surface marker of human osteoclast precursors in peripheral blood, bone marrow, and giant cell tumors of bone. J Bone Miner Res 21(9), 1339–1349.Google Scholar
Balke, M, Schremper, L, Gebert, C, Ahrens, H, Streitbuerger, A, Koehler, G, Hardes, J & Gosheger, G (2008). Giant cell tumor of bone: Treatment and outcome of 214 cases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134(9), 969–978.Google Scholar
Bearer, EL & Orci, L (1986). A simple method for quick-freezing. J Electron Microsc Tech 3(2), 233–241.Google Scholar
Boyde, A & Wood, C (1969). Preparation of animal tissues for surface-scanning electron microscopy. J Microsc 90(3), 221–249.Google Scholar
Chakarun, CJ, Forrester, DM, Gottsegen, CJ, Patel, DB, White, EA & Matcuk, GR Jr. (2013). Giant cell tumor of bone: Review, mimics, and new developments in treatment. Radiographics 33(1), 197–211.Google Scholar
Christine, D (1972). Preparation of alcohol-preserved larvae of Culicidae (Diptera) for scanning electron microscopy. Insect Syst Evol 3(3), 181–188.Google Scholar
Dey, S (1993). A new rapid air-drying technique for scanning electron microscopy using tetramethylsilane: Application to mammalian tissue. Cytobios 73(292), 17–23.Google Scholar
Frederik, PM & Busing, WM (1981). Ice crystal damage in frozen thin sections: Freezing effects and their restoration. J Microsc 121(Pt 2), 191–199.Google Scholar
Gunning, WT & Crang, RE (1984). The usefulness of glutaraldehyde-carbohydrazidecopolymerization in biological specimen stabilization for scanning electron microscopy. J Electron Microsc Tech 1, 131–140.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, H, Friedman, B & Mack, RP (1970). Ultrastructure and histogenesis of giant-cell tumor of bone. Cancer 25(6), 1408–1423.Google Scholar
Komiya, S (1982). Electron microscopy of bone tumors-osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, giant cell tumor of bone. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 56(7), 635–657.Google Scholar
Liao, TS, Yurgelun, MB, Chang, SS, Zhang, HZ, Murakami, K, Blaine, TA, Parisien, MV, Kim, W, Winchester, RJ & Lee, FY (2005). Recruitment of osteoclast precursors by stromal cell derived factor-1 (SDF-1) in giant cell tumor of bone. J Orthop Res 23(1), 203–209.Google Scholar
Morgan, T, Atkins, GJ, Trivett, MK, Johnson, SA, Kansara, M, Schlicht, SL, Slavin, JL, Simmons, P, Dickinson, I, Powell, G, Choong, PF, Holloway, AJ & Thomas, DM (2005). Molecular profiling of giant cell tumor of bone and the osteoclastic localization of ligand for receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB. Am J Pathol 167(1), 117–128.Google Scholar
Puri, A, Agarwal, MG, Shah, M, Jambhekar, NA, Anchan, C & Behle, S (2007). Giant cell tumor of bone in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 27(6), 635–639.Google Scholar
Terracio, L & Schwabe, KG (1981). Freezing and drying of biological tissues for electron microscopy. J Histochem Cytochem 29(9), 1021–1028.Google Scholar
Zambo, I & Vesely, K (2014). WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone 2013: The main changes compared to the 3rd edition. Cesk Patol 50(2), 64–70.Google Scholar