$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Skeletal muscle is a structurally and functionally unique tissue, and specialized preparation procedures are necessary to allow the optimal assessment of structural and functional parameters. While a variety of tissues are commonly frozen for pathological studies in clinical and research contexts, freezing protocols for non-muscle tissues usually involve the total immersion of the tissue in OCT before freezing. As shown in Figure 3, such a protocol is unsuitable for the pathological evaluation of skeletal muscle and yet is similar enough to the protocol described here that this is a commonly encountered error. The goal of this paper is to provide a straightforward protocol for the proper handling of muscle to avoid issues like this. Advice has also been compiled on the proper handling of muscle for off-site physiological and cellular studies in an effort to facilitate the acquisition of high quality data by outside core laboratories in cases where on-site studies are not preferable or possible.
As noted in this protocol, elements that are absolutely essential in the proper processing of muscle for pathological studies include minimizing the water content of the tissue, decreasing the temperature at which the muscle is frozen, and increasing the speed at which freezing is achieved. Excessive moisture within the tissue or excessive slowness of the freezing process (produced by insufficient temperatures or by lack of direct contact between the freezing agent and the tissue, as is encountered with liquid nitrogen) will lead to freezing artifacts that can impair pathological analysis. As OCT provides an additional source of tissue moisture, many laboratories use other adhesives like gum tragacanth as an embedding substrate. Even in cases where freezing is performed appropriately, care should be taken to avoid subsequently accidentally thawing specimens through contact with RT containers or instruments. Thus, a successful freezing process requires a degree of planning that includes a pre-chilling of all instruments and containers to be used. When freezing artifacts are encountered, there is a method described here for the recovery of the tissue that is sufficient for most pathological evaluations. However, this freeze/thaw cycle does not offer perfect histology and has the potential to impair other molecular or enzymatic studies of the tissue (in addition to the time required to re-freeze the tissue), so using appropriate initial freezing practices is vastly preferable. In cases where freezing artifact is encountered on pre-frozen tissue, however, the technique described herein can be extremely useful.
Fixation and processing of tissue for EM can offer specific technical challenges that require planning prior to tissue collection. The most common error when collecting specimens for EM involves the use of tissue fragments that are too thick for glutaraldehyde to penetrate. As glutaraldehyde only penetrates approximately 0.1 cm into muscle tissue from a given surface, care should be taken to ensure that one dimension of the EM samples is no thicker than 0.2 cm. Additionally, as EM is an excellent means of directly evaluating the contractile apparatus, some investigators have developed strategies to pre-tension or pre-stretch the muscle prior to fixation to allow the measurement of contractile elements at a physiologically relevant tension. There is no standard protocol for pre-tensioning, but two strategies are briefly described in this protocol. It should be noted that attempts to pre-tensioning the muscle can produce unpredictable results unless they are done in a very specific manner, and it may be preferable to fix muscles in the slack state to prevent artifactual changes in sarcomere length through a non-standard pre-tensioning procedure8,9. For muscles in which such specific measurements are not necessary (including most biopsies performed for clinical purposes), efforts to pre-tension the muscle are generally not made, and the main effect on muscle morphology is a non-uniform spacing of sarcomeres in the muscle.
This paper represents the first in a series to provide SOPs for the performance of tests in the congenital muscle disease field, and it represents the efforts of over 20 experts in the congenital muscle disease field that routinely perform cellular, molecular, functional, physiological, and pathological research. A range of published SOPs will be made available over the coming year, and the necessary protocols and appropriate publication formats for each were discussed at a Congenital Muscle Disease Consortium Workshop held in April of 2013 in Washington D.C. The goal of this SOP effort is to provide a roadmap for the necessary testing and analysis of specimens in the congenital muscle disease field to 1) standardize the practices and endpoints used in our field as much as possible, and 2) provide instruction on standard practices for new researchers in our field. We believe that these resources will facilitate the entry of new investigators into our under-studied field and thus improve the scope of research that can be performed. Additionally, a standardization of practices will be extremely helpful to compare data across studies and to identify endpoints when planning and performing preclinical and clinical trials.
While the main focus of this article is related to the appropriate freezing and preparation of tissue for a variety of studies, our collaborative group also discussed the useful endpoints for the pathological analysis of muscle specimens. At present, there is no official consensus on the approach to take when performing pathological analysis, and a variety of different studies are performed to relate new findings to prior publications for each respective disease. Thus, we thought that it would be useful to propose some general guidelines for the planning of pathological endpoints in muscle pathology characterization. Prior to quantifying the pathology in a study, considerable thought should be put into 1) the method of fiber size measurement, 2) the possibility of fiber-type-specific abnormalities or treatment effects, 3) the possibility of abnormalities or effects that are restricted to individual muscles, and 4) a strategy for quantifying pathological findings that are characteristic for the disease under study. Fiber size is a necessary endpoint for most studies, and unfortunately there is extensive variation in how it is quantified. Many studies report these results using automated quantification methods provided by proprietary imaging software, but many of these programs take shortcuts (such as assuming that the fibers are circles or ellipses) that can render these automated measurements inaccurate. It is necessary to understand how these automated programs make their measurements before having confidence in the measurements, and we encourage investigators to include these details in paper methods. Additionally, the specific measurement used to denote fiber size is extremely variable, and some measurements are preferable to others10,11. A commonly used measurement of fiber size is the fiber cross-sectional area (CSA), particularly because investigators performing physiological studies standardize their results to CSA measurements obtained using their instruments. Unfortunately, while CSA measurements can accurately reflect fiber size in perfect transverse sections, they are extensively dependent on fiber orientation (to the extent that longitudinal or obliquely-sectioned fibers will have artificially high CSA measurements) and are thus not ideal measurements for fiber size. A preferable measurement of fiber size that is less dependent on fiber cross-sectional area is the minimum Feret’s diameter (MinFeret diameter), which is the measurement of the minor diameter in the muscle cell12. This measurement is only slightly dependent on fiber orientation and is generally the clinical gold-standard for fiber measurement, and investigators are encouraged to move toward the use of this technique. These measurements can often be made using the same software that generates CSA measurements13, and are also straightforward to measure manually. With respect to evaluating the pathological data according to fiber type, specific muscle, and in the context of pathological findings related to the specific disease, these are less controversial issues that should just be considered during the planning of a study. Fiber type can be evaluated using immunohistochemical or ATPase staining, but it is useful to consider that specific muscles and animal species have specific mixtures of these fiber types (thus necessitating different expectations and testing strategies). Muscle specific pathological involvement or treatment efficacy can occur, and total muscle weight compared to controls can be used to identify the degree of heterogeneity of disease before deciding on the muscles to pathologically evaluate. Finally, it is well known that many muscle diseases are associated with specific pathological abnormalities (such as nemaline rods in nemaline myopathy)14,15, and so it is also useful to consider whether these abnormalities are found in a fiber-type- or muscle-specific distribution when performing the analysis16,17. Overall, while we do not propose an inflexible set of standards for the evaluation of muscle, we do believe that these issues should be considered prior to the performance of pathological studies in any skeletal muscle disease.