Title |
Nanoscale imaging of clinical specimens using pathology-optimized expansion microscopy
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nature Biotechnology, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1038/nbt.3892 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yongxin Zhao, Octavian Bucur, Humayun Irshad, Fei Chen, Astrid Weins, Andreea L Stancu, Eun-Young Oh, Marcello DiStasio, Vanda Torous, Benjamin Glass, Isaac E Stillman, Stuart J Schnitt, Andrew H Beck, Edward S Boyden |
Abstract |
Expansion microscopy (ExM), a method for improving the resolution of light microscopy by physically expanding a specimen, has not been applied to clinical tissue samples. Here we report a clinically optimized form of ExM that supports nanoscale imaging of human tissue specimens that have been fixed with formalin, embedded in paraffin, stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and/or fresh frozen. The method, which we call expansion pathology (ExPath), converts clinical samples into an ExM-compatible state, then applies an ExM protocol with protein anchoring and mechanical homogenization steps optimized for clinical samples. ExPath enables ∼70-nm-resolution imaging of diverse biomolecules in intact tissues using conventional diffraction-limited microscopes and standard antibody and fluorescent DNA in situ hybridization reagents. We use ExPath for optical diagnosis of kidney minimal-change disease, a process that previously required electron microscopy, and we demonstrate high-fidelity computational discrimination between early breast neoplastic lesions for which pathologists often disagree in classification. ExPath may enable the routine use of nanoscale imaging in pathology and clinical research. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 32 | 35% |
Germany | 6 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
Switzerland | 4 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Sweden | 2 | 2% |
Guinea | 1 | 1% |
India | 1 | 1% |
Other | 9 | 10% |
Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 52 | 57% |
Scientists | 31 | 34% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 380 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 23% |
Researcher | 75 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 41 | 11% |
Student > Master | 39 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 5% |
Other | 58 | 15% |
Unknown | 60 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 92 | 24% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 13% |
Engineering | 44 | 12% |
Neuroscience | 39 | 10% |
Chemistry | 29 | 8% |
Other | 58 | 15% |
Unknown | 68 | 18% |