Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35802747›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Preparation of biological monolayers for producing high-resolution scanning electron micrographs.

Shireen Mentor, Franscious Cummings, David Fisher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Cyclic Peptide Cyclo-zp80r ControlsFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shireen MentorDepartment of Medical Biosciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of The Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5430-0867
Franscious CummingsDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Electron Microscopy Unit, University of The Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9704-9120
David FisherDepartment of Medical Biosciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of The Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6070-0234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) provides a technical platform for nanoscopic mapping of biological structures. Correct preparation of SEM samples can provide an unprecedented understanding of the nexus between cellular morphology and topography. This comparative study critically examines two coating methods for preparing biological samples for scanning electron microscopy, while also providing novel advice on how to prepare in vitro epithelial or endothelial samples for high-resolution scanning-electron microscopy (HR-SEM). Two obstacles often confront the biologist when investigating cellular structures grown under tissue culture conditions, namely., how to prepare and present the biological samples to the HR-SEM microscope without affecting topographical membrane and cellular structural alterations. Firstly, our use of the Millicell cellulose inserts on which to grow our cellular samples in preparation for HR-SEM is both novel and advantageous to comparing the permeability function of cells to their morphological function. Secondly, biological material is often non-conducting, thermally sensitive and fragile and, therefore, needs to be fixed correctly and coated with thin conducting metal to ensure high-resolution detail of samples. Immortalized mouse brain endothelial cells (bEnd5) was used as a basis for describing the preferences in the use of the protocol. We compare two biological sample coating modalities for the visualizing and analysis of texturized, topographical, membranous ultrastructures of brain endothelial cell (BEC) confluent monolayers, namely, carbon and gold:palladium (Au:Pd) sputter coating in preparation for HR-SEM. BEC monolayers sputter-coated with these two modalities produced three-dimensional micrographs which have distinctly different topographical detail from which the nanostructural cellular data can be examined. The two coating methods display differences in the amount of nanoscopic detail that could be resolved in the nanosized membrane cytoarchitecture of BEC monolayers. The micrographical data clearly showed that Au:Pd sputter-coated samples generate descript imagery, providing useful information for profiling membrane nanostructures compared to carbon-coated samples. The recommendations regarding the contrast in two modalities would provide the necessary guidance to biological microscopists in preparing tissue culture samples for HR-SEM.

Indexed as

ElectronsEndothelial CellsAnimalsCarbonGoldMiceMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningCarbonGold

Identifiers

PMID35802747
PMCPMC9269934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.