Re: glycol methacrylate sections
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From: | Karen S Pawlowski <kna101@utdallas.edu> |
To: | MarikoKoe@aol.com |
Reply-To: | |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Hi Ray,
I make my GMA fairly soft and I would guess that when I section at 1 -2
microns, I may have a 1 micron variance within a block, but I usually
place 5 sections on one slide and stain. I know from intentionally
"thick/thin" sectioning on some of these slides that it is easy to tell a
5 micron section from the 1 - 2 micron sections and usually I can see a
staining density difference between the 1 and the 2 micron sections. I
think as long as you cut all of it in one sitting, and keep your
section rate constant, your variance from section to section will be low.
The GMA protocol I use (actually JB-4) makes a soft block that is subject
to distortions from changes in temp. and humidity.
I have less problems with distortion from spurr's and other EM plastics.
The other question is whether you have the same thickness from block to
block. I would think this variation would be greater.
Hope this helps.
Karen Pawlowski
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 MarikoKoe@aol.com wrote:
> Would anyone with some fairly extensive GMA (or other plastics) viewing
> experience care to briefly discuss the following? What is your comfort level
> with being assured of the thickness of the section? That is, if you are
> looking at a well-processed, well sectioned, well-stained kidney biopsy, how
> confident are you to state that this section is 1.5 microns versus 2.0
> microns thick by microscopic viewing alone. Note I am not talking about
> cutting one at 1.5 and another at 2.0 and then guessing which might look a
> little thinner. But what about viewing a single slide and stating with
> confidence that this section is at 1.0 or 1.5 or 2.0 microns? Where is your
> comfort level for making this assessment? In addition, what is your idea of
> slide readability for diagnostic purposes? If something is requested at 1.0
> to 2.0 microns, is 2.5 microns "too thick" to read? Obviously this may have
> to do with the specimen and the pathology involved, but how precisely crucial
> do you consider the thickness of the section to within a micron or so of the
> requested value?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray in Seattle
>
>
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>