RE: EM - Histology use
I used to work in at an electron microscopy diagnostic
virology lab- it was actually speedy
because we used negative staining techniques with our TEM.
(for samples such as urine, csf, stool, etc)
You could have a diagnosis in 1/2 hr.
With tissue , of course , it took much longer.
It was exciting because we directly visualized the
viral particles and it felt much more definitive than
say a colormetric change..
I have also worked with dignosing genetic skin disorders by
EM. It was really the method of choice for
the blistering diseases - and determining subtypes.
For sure - not a quick turn around time though.
Box 359620/ Dept of Surgery
University of Washington
Harborview R&T Building
300 9th Ave
Seattle, WA 98104
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Mitchell (Jean A.) wrote:
> I will agree with the other postings on the EM subject. EM is time
> intensive and in many settings not cost effective. The price of a scope
> and the price of an annual service contract is enough to detract many
> laboratories from maintaining their own set-up.
> I am in a neuromuscular laboratory and close to 50% of our cases still
> have EM work up on them. But we rent scope time from another facility.
> Jean Mitchell, BS, HT
> University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics
> Department of Neurology
> Madison, WI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ephram Shizgal [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:03 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: EM - Histology use
> I'm hoping that Histonetters will be able to clarify a question I have:
> What are the primary reasons that Electron Microscopy is not used
> extensively in Histology/Pathology?
> Is it related more to the goals of histology and pathology labs or to
> the challenges associated with EM technology (price, size, complexity of
> Ephram Shizgal
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>