| Literature DB >> 23793043 |
Kelly Burrell1, Sameer Agnihotri, Michael Leung, Ralph Dacosta, Richard Hill, Gelareh Zadeh.
Abstract
We have successfully integrated previously established Intracranial window (ICW) technology (1-4) with intravital 2-photon confocal microscopy to develop a novel platform that allows for direct long-term visualization of tissue structure changes intracranially. Imaging at a single cell resolution in a real-time fashion provides supplementary dynamic information beyond that provided by standard end-point histological analysis, which looks solely at 'snap-shot' cross sections of tissue. Establishing this intravital imaging technique in fluorescent chimeric mice, we are able to image four fluorescent channels simultaneously. By incorporating fluorescently labeled cells, such as GFP+ bone marrow, it is possible to track the fate of these cells studying their long-term migration, integration and differentiation within tissue. Further integration of a secondary reporter cell, such as an mCherry glioma tumor line, allows for characterization of cell:cell interactions. Structural changes in the tissue microenvironment can be highlighted through the addition of intra-vital dyes and antibodies, for example CD31 tagged antibodies and Dextran molecules. Moreover, we describe the combination of our ICW imaging model with a small animal micro-irradiator that provides stereotactic irradiation, creating a platform through which the dynamic tissue changes that occur following the administration of ionizing irradiation can be assessed. Current limitations of our model include penetrance of the microscope, which is limited to a depth of up to 900 μm from the sub cortical surface, limiting imaging to the dorsal axis of the brain. The presence of the skull bone makes the ICW a more challenging technical procedure, compared to the more established and utilized chamber models currently used to study mammary tissue and fat pads (5-7). In addition, the ICW provides many challenges when optimizing the imaging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23793043 PMCID: PMC3727480 DOI: 10.3791/50363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vis Exp ISSN: 1940-087X Impact factor: 1.355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Excitation laser | 458 nm | 488 nm | 543 nm | 633 nm | Chameleon laser 820 nm |
| Collection Filter | 480-520 nm | 500-550 nm | 565-615 nm | 650-710 nm | 390-465 nm |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.4 | Bone shatter | Blunt tools | Collect bone marrow form a fresh mouse using sharpened scissors or fresh scalpel blade, bone fragments will inhibit TV injection |
| 1.5 | Low extraction (low viscosity) | Bone endplates cut too distally; poor collection method | Bones should be cut as proximally as possible and collected with the bone inside collection tube to prevent splash back Time should be spent to extract the BM maximally and with care If necessary pool more than one mouse into 1 ml |
| High Extraction (high Viscosity) | Low collection buffer | Dilute out solution with extra 0.1% BSA, split to three recipient mice up to 500 μl per mouse maximum | |
| 1.6 | Bad Intravenous injection | Poor vasodilation and vessel visibility | Enhance dilation with heat lamp. Place mouse in tail vein restrainer with built in light source to aid access |
| 1 | Mice Sick | Infection | Sacrifice mice according to institution rules. Ensure tails are cleaned prior to injection and check sterility of extracted BM in culture |
| Mice die | Poor BM uptake | Check % of fluorescent BM uptake of dead mouse. Optimize TBI for strain of mice being used Increase amount of BM injection (example use one donor mouse for two recipients) | |
| 2.4 | Minor hemorrhaging | Dura breached during drilling | Pressure with gel pads and and continuous sterile saline wash |
| Major hemorrhaging | Brain damaged by drilling | Sacrifice mouse according to institution guidelines | |
| 2.8 | Air-bubbles under coverslip | Poor contact with cortical surface prevents proper placement | Remove coverslip and add extra PBS to float the coverslip onto the window to remove bubbles |
| 2.10 | Slippage of coverslip during gluing | Acrylic mass is heavy, placing pressure on the coverslip and moves the coverslip out of the way | Tweezers should be used to hold coverslip down while vetbond and acrylic is applied |
| 4.2 | Bad Intravenous injection | Poor vasodilation and vessel visibility | Enhance dilation with heat lamp. Place mouse in tail vein restrainer with built in light source to aid access |
| 4.4 Figure 3C | 'Lined' images | Labored or irregular breathing | Remove mouse from frame and allow to recover Increase level of anaesthetic administered and adjust position to ensure neck is not overly flexed or extended to prevent breathing |
| Figure 3C | 'Segmented' image | Brain is not parallel to objectives | Adjust position of coverslip to ensure it is flat |
| Vessel not visualized | injection not seen intravascularly | Redo injection into alternative tail vein, warm tail to ensure good vasodilation | |
| High background | Dirty coverslip, Air Bubbles, Acrylic | Wipe coverslip with damp 70% ethanol cloth, do not soak as may penetrate under acrylic and damage the brain tissue |