Re: Daily Digest

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:Hedley David Glencross <>
To:HistoNet Server <>
Date:Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:24:31 +0100

>Date: 16 Jun 1999 14:01:15 -0500
>From: "Barry Rittman" <>
>Subject: Re: celloidin sections
>            positive things to remember about celloidin are that
>1. shrinkage and distortion is minimal compared to paraffin (approximately
>2.    for most celloidin techniques no heat was involved and therfore
>tissues could be left infiltrating for extended periods of time (and this
>was usually a requirement)
>3. thick sections in the order of  100 microns or greater could be cut and
>provided valuable insight into the spatial organization of various tissues.
>With confocal and other types of microscopy it is possible to optically
>section these.
>4.    very large blocks of tissue could be processed
>I think that the abandonment of celloidin in favor of paraffin wax was
>inevitable due to the time required for processing of  blocks and the skill
>in producing and staining sections. However, I have not seen paraffin
>sections of eye that can equal celloidin sections as regards the lack of
>distortion and the clarity of staining and detail.

I agree with the comments made re celloidin processing, and the beauty
revealed using this method.

However, wax blocks of many sizes can be "back processed" and stained as
a whole. These are then viewed under stereo microscopes, giving a whole
new outlook on life. Try it with a "in situ" breast carcinoma.

Mail me your fax number, and I can give references if you wish. They are
few and far between.

Hedley David Glencross

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>