Surface imaging microscopy, an automated method for visualizing whole embryo samples in three dimensions at high resolution

Developmental Dynamics

Volumn 225, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 369-375

  Ewald, Andrew J ^a   Mcbride, Helen ^a   Reddington, Mark ^b   Fraser, Scott E ^a   Kerschmann, Russell ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Resolution Sciences Corp   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Chicken; Frog; Imaging; Morphogenesis; Mouse; Three dimensional reconstruction; Visualization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHICK EMBRYO; CONFOCAL LASER MICROSCOPY; CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY; DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DNA MODIFICATION; EMBRYO (ANATOMY); FROG; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MICROSCOPIC ANATOMY; MICROSCOPY; MORPHOGENESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ANIMAL; ANIMAL EMBRYO; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; HISTOLOGY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; XENOPUS LAEVIS;

ANURA; GALLUS GALLUS; VERTEBRATA;

ANIMALS; CHICK EMBRYO; EMBRYO, NONMAMMALIAN; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MICROSCOPY, CONFOCAL; MICROSCOPY, FLUORESCENCE; TISSUE EMBEDDING; XENOPUS LAEVIS;

EID: 0036841882     PISSN: 10588388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dvdy.10169     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Boppart SA, Brezinski ME, Bouma BE, Tearney GJ, Fujimoto JG. 1996. Investigation of developing embryonic morphology using optical coherence tomography. Dev Biol 177:54-63.
2. Brune RM, Bard JBL, Dubreuil C, Guest E, Hill W, Kaufman M, Stark M, Davidson D, Baldock RA. 1999. A Three-dimensional model of the mouse at embryonic day 9. Dev Biol 216:457-468.
3. Dhenain M, Ruffins SW, Jacobs RE. 2001. Three-dimensional digital mouse atlas using high-resolution MRI. Dev Biol 232:458-470.
4. Hegre ES, Brashear AD. 1946. Block surface staining. Stain Technol 21:161-164.
5. Nieuwkoop PD, Faber J, editors. 1994. Normal Table of Xenopus Laevis (Daudin). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 252 p.
6. Odgaard A, Andersen K, Melsen F, Gundersen HJG. 1990. A direct method for fast three-dimensional serial reconstruction. J Microsc 159:335-342.
7. Pawley JB, editor. 1995. Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy. New York: Plenum Press. 632 p.
8. Postlethwait SN. 1962. Cinematography with serial sections. Turtox News. p 98-100.
9. Schreibman MP, Presnell JK. 1997. Humason's Animal Tissue Techniques. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Ltd. 572 p.
10. Sharpe J, Ahlgren U, Perry P, Hill B, Ross A, Hecksher-Sorensen J, Baldock R, Davidson D. 2002. Optical projection tomography as a tool for 3D microscopy and gene expression studies. Science 296:541-545.
11. Sive HL, Grainger RM, Harland RH. 2000. Early Development of Xenopus Laevis: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. 338 p.
12. Streicher J, Muller GB. 2001. 3D modelling of gene expression patterns. Trends Biotechnol 19:145-148.
13. Streicher J, Weninger WJ, Mueller GB. 1997. External marker-based automatic congruencing: A new method of 3D reconstructions from serial sections. Anat Rec 248:583-602.
14. Toga AW, Ambach KL, Quinn B, Shankar K, Schluender S. 1996. Postmortem anatomy. In: Mazziotta JC, editor. Brain Mapping, the Methods. San Diego: Academic Press. p 471.
15. Weninger WJ, Mohun T. 2002. Phenotyping transgenic embryos: A rapid 3-D screening method based on episcopic fluorescence image capturing. Nat Genet 30:59-65.