| Literature DB >> 30046750 |
Harald Schulze1, David Stegner1.
Abstract
In this review paper, we give a historical perspective of the development of imaging modalities to visualize platelet biogenesis and how this contributed to our current understanding of megakaryopoiesis and thrombopoiesis. We provide some insight how distinct in vivo and in situ imaging methods, including ultramicrographs, have contributed to the current concepts of platelet formation. The onset of intravital microscopy into the mouse bone marrow has markedly modified and challenged our thinking of platelet biogenesis during the last decade. Finally, we discuss ongoing work, which was presented at the recent International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) meeting.Entities:
Keywords: bone marrow; imaging; megakaryocyte; platelet biogenesis; proplatelets
Year: 2018 PMID: 30046750 PMCID: PMC6046590 DOI: 10.1002/rth2.12112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost ISSN: 2475-0379
Figure 1Platelet biogenesis in vivo. (A) eYFP+‐MKs are detected in MPM (left panel) and are additionally labeled by anti‐CD42b‐antibodies (middle panel). Vessels and sinusoids are visualized by intravenous injection of Qdots‐655 (right panel). Scale bars indicate 50 μm. (B) Still images from time‐lapse microscopy video 1 hour after antibody injection. Antibody decorated MKs are able to form proplatelets (arrows). (C) Still images from a video showing that antibody‐decorated MKs are able to form platelet‐sized particles as well as long, extended protrusions (proplatelets, arrows), which grow substantially within the overall observation period (arrow‐heads, lower panel)
Advantages and disadvantages of methods for imaging platelet biogenesis
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages and technical limitations | References for application in MKs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) | High spatial resolution in the range of nanometers | Fixed specimen requiredTiny visual field |
|
| Epifluorescence microscopy: confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). spinning disk confocal microscopy (SDCM) | Well established and versatile method, also applicable in vivo; costaining with multiple fluorophores allows colocalization studies | High phototoxicity, large, voluminous samples require sectioning; limited scanning speed has been improved by resonance scanners; most of visible light is absorbed; limited spatial resolution of less than 200 nm (x/y) and 600 nm (z) |
|
| Two‐Photon Microscopy (2PM) | Intra‐vital imaging, penetration depth of about 1 mm,Dynamic imaging with several frames per second; can be combined with non‐linear microscopy approaches | Small visual field, limited observation time of few hours; requires pulsed lasers |
|
| Light‐Sheet Fluorescence Microscopy (LSFM):
Single Plane Illumination Microscopy (SPIM), Digitally Scanned Light‐sheet Microscopy (DSLM) | Unprecedented volumes can be imaged which allows to image whole mouse organs (femur, lung, etc.); low phototoxicity and photobleaching | Transparent or optically cleared specimen required; analysis generates large datasets for subsequent image processing |
|
| Localization (or super‐resolution) microscopy: direct Stochastic Optical Localization Microscopy (dSTORM),Single Molecule Light Microscopy (SMLM), Stimulated emission depleted (STED),Photo‐Activated Localization Microscopy (PALM) | High spatial resolution (up to the visualization of single molecules) | Small visual fieldLimited temporal resolution. To date still with limited z‐resolution |
|
| Correlative light and electron microscopy (CLEM) | Combination of fluorescence microscopy and TEM results in best resolution; intravital fluroescence and subsequent TEM is possible | Small visual field, low speed; technical alignment of region of interest in light microscopy with TEM |