Hayley L Crowell, Ramon S Nagesan, Alison R Davis Rabosky, Matthew A Kolmann
{"title":"水溶液和乙溶液-鲁戈尔碘染色法在观察μCT扫描脊椎动物解剖结构方面的性能差异。","authors":"Hayley L Crowell, Ramon S Nagesan, Alison R Davis Rabosky, Matthew A Kolmann","doi":"10.1111/joa.14148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Museum specimens are an increasingly important tool for studying global biodiversity. With the advent of diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT), researchers can now visualize an organism's internal soft tissue anatomy without the need for physical dissection or other highly destructive sampling methods. However, there are many considerations when deciding which method of staining to use for diceCT to produce the best gray-scale contrast for facilitating downstream anatomical analyses. The general lack of direct comparisons among staining methodologies can make it difficult for researchers to determine which approaches are most appropriate for their study. Here, we compare the performance of ethylic-Lugol's iodine solution with aqueous-Lugol's staining solution across several vertebrate orders to assess differential imaging outcomes. We found that ethylic-Lugol's is better for visualizing muscle attachment to bone but provides overall lower contrast between soft tissue types. Comparatively, aqueous-based Lugol's provides high-contrast imaging among soft tissue types, although bone is more difficult to discern. We conclude that the choice of staining methodology largely depends on the type of anatomical data the researcher wishes to collect, and we provide a decision-based framework for assessing which staining methodology (ethylic or aqueous) is most appropriate for desired imaging results.</p>","PeriodicalId":14971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anatomy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential performance of aqueous- and ethylic-Lugol's iodine stain to visualize anatomy in μCT-scanned vertebrates.\",\"authors\":\"Hayley L Crowell, Ramon S Nagesan, Alison R Davis Rabosky, Matthew A Kolmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joa.14148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Museum specimens are an increasingly important tool for studying global biodiversity. With the advent of diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT), researchers can now visualize an organism's internal soft tissue anatomy without the need for physical dissection or other highly destructive sampling methods. However, there are many considerations when deciding which method of staining to use for diceCT to produce the best gray-scale contrast for facilitating downstream anatomical analyses. The general lack of direct comparisons among staining methodologies can make it difficult for researchers to determine which approaches are most appropriate for their study. Here, we compare the performance of ethylic-Lugol's iodine solution with aqueous-Lugol's staining solution across several vertebrate orders to assess differential imaging outcomes. We found that ethylic-Lugol's is better for visualizing muscle attachment to bone but provides overall lower contrast between soft tissue types. Comparatively, aqueous-based Lugol's provides high-contrast imaging among soft tissue types, although bone is more difficult to discern. We conclude that the choice of staining methodology largely depends on the type of anatomical data the researcher wishes to collect, and we provide a decision-based framework for assessing which staining methodology (ethylic or aqueous) is most appropriate for desired imaging results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anatomy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anatomy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14148\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differential performance of aqueous- and ethylic-Lugol's iodine stain to visualize anatomy in μCT-scanned vertebrates.
Museum specimens are an increasingly important tool for studying global biodiversity. With the advent of diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT), researchers can now visualize an organism's internal soft tissue anatomy without the need for physical dissection or other highly destructive sampling methods. However, there are many considerations when deciding which method of staining to use for diceCT to produce the best gray-scale contrast for facilitating downstream anatomical analyses. The general lack of direct comparisons among staining methodologies can make it difficult for researchers to determine which approaches are most appropriate for their study. Here, we compare the performance of ethylic-Lugol's iodine solution with aqueous-Lugol's staining solution across several vertebrate orders to assess differential imaging outcomes. We found that ethylic-Lugol's is better for visualizing muscle attachment to bone but provides overall lower contrast between soft tissue types. Comparatively, aqueous-based Lugol's provides high-contrast imaging among soft tissue types, although bone is more difficult to discern. We conclude that the choice of staining methodology largely depends on the type of anatomical data the researcher wishes to collect, and we provide a decision-based framework for assessing which staining methodology (ethylic or aqueous) is most appropriate for desired imaging results.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Anatomy is an international peer-reviewed journal sponsored by the Anatomical Society. The journal publishes original papers, invited review articles and book reviews. Its main focus is to understand anatomy through an analysis of structure, function, development and evolution. Priority will be given to studies of that clearly articulate their relevance to the anatomical community. Focal areas include: experimental studies, contributions based on molecular and cell biology and on the application of modern imaging techniques and papers with novel methods or synthetic perspective on an anatomical system.
Studies that are essentially descriptive anatomy are appropriate only if they communicate clearly a broader functional or evolutionary significance. You must clearly state the broader implications of your work in the abstract.
We particularly welcome submissions in the following areas:
Cell biology and tissue architecture
Comparative functional morphology
Developmental biology
Evolutionary developmental biology
Evolutionary morphology
Functional human anatomy
Integrative vertebrate paleontology
Methodological innovations in anatomical research
Musculoskeletal system
Neuroanatomy and neurodegeneration
Significant advances in anatomical education.