2011
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.21111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Six common errors cause dangerous mistakes in interpretation of electron micrographs

Abstract: The highly complex techniques of electron microscopy made it bound to the sensitive and critical micrograph analysis. The accurately interpreted micrographs are of paramount values in basic investigations. Interpretation skills and quality of the micrographs are the two fundamental keys in accomplishment of these goals but there are many mistakes and errors that can happen during the sample preparation, sectioning, EM operation, and photo publishing. The mentioned mistakes and errors effect directly in the fin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 19 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, fixation protocols, permeabilization, contrast agents and fluorescent labelling approaches and should be carefully chosen and optimized for the specific research objective so as to obtain clean, high-resolution images for processing. Sample preparation methods and imaging techniques are discussed in depth for scanning electron (Goldberg, 2008;Moradi and Behjati, 2012), atomic force (El Kirat et al, 2005), and fluorescent microscopy (Hanrahan et al, 2011).…”
Section: Sample Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, fixation protocols, permeabilization, contrast agents and fluorescent labelling approaches and should be carefully chosen and optimized for the specific research objective so as to obtain clean, high-resolution images for processing. Sample preparation methods and imaging techniques are discussed in depth for scanning electron (Goldberg, 2008;Moradi and Behjati, 2012), atomic force (El Kirat et al, 2005), and fluorescent microscopy (Hanrahan et al, 2011).…”
Section: Sample Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%