Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T09:29:17.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Cryo Techniques on Cytological Studies of Plant Pathogenic Fungi and their Hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

R. J. Howard ,
T. M. Bourett  and
K. E. Duncan
R. J. Howard
Affiliation:
DuPont Agricultural Products, Experimental Station, Wilmington, DE19880-0402
T. M. Bourett
Affiliation:
DuPont Agricultural Products, Experimental Station, Wilmington, DE19880-0402
K. E. Duncan
Affiliation:
DuPont Agricultural Products, Experimental Station, Wilmington, DE19880-0402
Get access

Extract

Cryo techniques of specimen preparation have become the standard for cytological studies of biological specimens. From the pioneering work of Feder and Sidman, and Zalokar, the now ubiquitous application of freeze substitution for transmission electron microscope studies of fungi was a direct result of work reported in 1979. Since then, cryopreparative methods have also become the standard for SEM studies and may, for certain purposes, replace conventional methods of fixation for light microscopy as well. Undoubtedly, there are instances where non-cryo methods might be preferred, or where comparisons of results using cryo vs. chemical fixations can provide unique information. On the whole, however, the advantages offered to mycologists and plant pathologists by cryo fixation over any chemical methods are many, and include (a) the opportunity to preserve specimens in a non-aqueous environment, (b) preservation of labile structures such as certain organelles, extracellular matrices, or various cellular content such as ions or that of vacuoles, (c) preservation of cells in a more life-like state,

Type
Light and Electron Microscopic Techniques for the Study of Plant Pathogenic Fungi and Their Interactions with Host Plants
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 6 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis 2000, Microscopy Society of America 58th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 34th Annual Meeting, Microscopical Society of Canada/Societe de Microscopie de Canada 27th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania August 13-17, 2000 , August 2000 , pp. 674 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

1.Feder, N. and Sidman, R. L., J. Biophys. Biochem. Cytol. 4 (1958) 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Zalokar, M., J. Ultrastruct. Res. 15 (1966) 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Howard, R. J. and Aist, J. R., J. Ultrastruct. Res. 66 (1979) 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hamer, J. E. et al., Science 239 (1988) 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Howard, R. J., J. Cell Sci. 48 (1981) 89.Google Scholar
6.Bourett, T. M. et al., Planta 208 (1999) 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Braun, E.J. and Howard, R. J., Protoplasma 181(1994) 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hoch, H. C. and Howard, R. J., Protoplasma 103 (1980) 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hoch, H. C. and Howard, R. J., Exp. Mycol. 5 (1981) 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Bourett, T. M. et al. Exp. Mycol, 17 (1993) 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Bourett, T. M. et al., Fungal Genet. & Biol. 24 (1998) 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar