HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Dijk, M C R F Articles by Bernsen, M R Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Dijk, M C R F Articles by Bernsen, M R

Improved resolution by mounting of tissue sections for laser microdissection

Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Correspondence to:
Dr M C R F van Dijk, Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
m.vandijk{at}pathol.umcn.nl

Background: Laser microbeam microdissection has greatly facilitated the procurement of specific cell populations from tissue sections. However, the fact that a coverslip is not used means that the morphology of the tissue sections is often poor.

Aims: To develop a mounting method that greatly improves the morphological quality of tissue sections for laser microbeam microdissection purposes so that the identification of target cells can be facilitated.

Methods: Fresh frozen tissue and formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue specimens were used to test the morphological quality of mounted and unmounted tissue. The mounting solution consisted of an adhesive gum and blue ink diluted in water. Interference of the mounting solution with DNA quality was analysed by the polymerase chain reaction using 10–2000 cells isolated by microdissection from mounted and unmounted tissue.

Results: The mounting solution greatly improved the morphology of tissue sections for laser microdissection purposes and had no detrimental effects on the isolation and efficiency of amplification of DNA. One disadvantage was that the mounting solution reduced the cutting efficiency of the ultraviolet laser. To minimise this effect, the mounting solution should be diluted as much as possible. Furthermore, the addition of blue ink to the mounting medium restores the cutting efficiency of the laser.

Conclusions: The mounting solution is easy to prepare and apply and can be combined with various staining methods without compromising the quality of the DNA extracted.

Keywords: laser microdissection; morphology; mounting solution; polymerase chain reaction

Abbreviations: FSH, follicle stimulating hormone; LMM, laser microbeam microdissection; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PEN, polyethylene; UV, ultraviolet