$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The workflow described here (Figure 1) starts with a sample embedded in a resin block. During the sample preparation, some heavy metal should be introduced into the tissue, but it is not necessary to use protocols optimized for rather strong metallization. Figure 1A shows a plant root (cress) block-stained conventionally with 1% OsO4 and 1% uranyl acetate, while the Arabidopsis root in Figure 1B is only weakly metalized using 0.5% uranyl acetate. The latter sample type is best suited for correlative approaches as some heavy metals tend to quench fluorescence. With a dedicated substrate holder (Figure 2), arrays of several hundred sections can be produced (Figure 1C). After fluorescent labeling, such arrays are imaged in a standard wide-field FLM (Figure 1D), then stained with heavy metal solutions and imaged in a SEM at different resolutions (Figure 1E-G).
Important tools for the reproducible generation of arrays, particularly when placing several ribbons from the microtome's knife boat onto a substrate, are the substrate holder (Figure 2A, custom-designed in the authors' laboratory) and a Jumbo diamond knife with a boat large enough to accommodate microscope slides (Figure 2B). A flat meniscus, allowing good observation of the ribbons, is necessary and can be achieved by plasma cleaning of the substrate: A small droplet of distilled water should not form a lens-like structure on the substrate as in Figure 2C (untreated substrate), but a thin film (Figure 2D, plasma activated substrate). Under these conditions, ribbons attached to the dry part of an ITO-coated coverslip are easily visualized (Figure 2E) and can be observed and controlled during the lift-out of the substrate from the water.
As an example, arrays stained with propidium iodide to label the plant cell walls were imaged with a standard wide field FLM (Figure 3A). Since the sections are only 100 nm thick, even over-staining as shown here introduces little blurring. After registration, the two cells completely enclosed in the reconstructed volume were selected from the image stack (Figure 3B) for high-resolution imaging in 3D (see also Supplemental Movie S1). Following additional staining with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, the arrays were imaged in the SEM. Figure 3C shows an overview, recorded with 60 nm image pixels; the dark square in the center of the image indicates the position where the autofocus functions were executed, and the additional dose led to slight contamination. Appropriate ROIs in those serial sections (slices 51 to 248 of 435 slices in total) containing the two target cells selected in the FLM stack were then recorded with a 5 nm image pixel size (Figure 3D; see also Supplemental Movie S2).
Automated hierarchical imaging of the arrays in the SEM described here was done with the software/hardware platform solution ZEISS Atlas 5. First, an overview of the whole array was created using the SE detector, with very large (1,000 nm) image pixels and very low dwell time (Figure 4A). An ROI outlining only the tissue was placed on the first section and propagated to all other sections of the array. This section set was then recorded with 60 nm image pixels using a longer dwell time (Figure 4B). Finally, a site set, containing the two target cells plus one "layer" of surrounding cells to account for stage inaccuracy, was set up with the following parameters: ESB (Energy Selective Backscatter) detector, 5 nm image pixels, very long (40 µs) dwell time (Figure 4C). Zooming in to such an image shows subcellular detail (Figure 4D) such as vacuoles (V), mitochondria (M), nucleus (N), and endoplasmic reticulum (arrows). See also the Supplemental Movie S3 for zooming in from an overview of the whole array to the subcellular detail of one target cell.
The array shown here (200 sections) plus an additional one of 250 sections took about 8 h to produce, one night to stain for LM, and one day to record (manually) at the FLM. Post-staining takes about 1-2 h in total, depending on the number of individual arrays. For SEM recording, a few hours are required to set up the Atlas run, and automated recording was 3–4 h for the intermediate resolution (60 nm pixel size) section set (200 sections, 450 x 200 µm2) and about 5 days for the high-resolution (5 nm pixel size) ROI containing the two target cells (200 sections, 55 x 30 µm2). Note that due to the low metal content of the sample shown here, a very slow scanning speed had to be used to reach a good signal-to-noise detection, which implied (for the currently available detector) a dwell time of 40 µs for the high-resolution ROI.
There are several steps in the whole workflow prone to pitfalls: Ideally ribbons should be more or less straight and placed in the right order (Figure 5A). However, bent (Figure 5B), curved (Figure 5D), or even broken ribbons are often produced. This can result due to incorrect trimming (leading and trailing edges not exactly parallel), or non-uniformly applied adhesive, but also from an asymmetric or unevenly infiltrated sample. Particularly troublesome are samples containing both soft and very hard components. The latter components may be difficult to infiltrate such as the cell wall of the plant roots shown here (Figure 5C). In that case, folds (arrowheads) can easily be caused by variable compression and relaxation during sectioning. For automated imaging in the SEM, curved ribbons are not a great problem, since the ROIs can be rotated to accommodate the curvature of the ribbon.
Another critical step in the protocol is staining: Inadequate washing can lead to residues on the section (Figure 5E, F), and in the worst case, cover the most interesting area (circle on one of the two target cells in Figure 5F). Also, dust (Figure 5D, strongly light scattering particles) introduced into the knife boat, e.g., with a dirty substrate carrier, can cause serious problems: In the FLM, dust can be highly fluorescent (cf. some slices in Supplemental Movie S1) to such an extent that some registration algorithms do not function. The "align" function in TrakEM17 however, can handle such stacks as demonstrated in Supplemental Movie S1.

Figure 1: Workflow for the correlative hierarchical imaging. Starting from a sample embedded in a resin block (A, strongly metalized sample), the sample is first trimmed (B, weakly metalized sample) and then arrays consisting of several ribbons of serial sections (C), here placed on an ITO-coated coverslip, are produced using an ultramicrotome. After staining with a fluorescent dye, stacks of images are recorded in a wide-field FLM (D). After further staining rounds with heavy metal salts, stacks are imaged in a SEM (E-G) at different resolutions (image pixel sizes). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Tools for the preparation of arrays. Substrate holder assembled from micromanipulators with seven axes of movement attached to a standard ultramicrotome (A): the screws, highlighted with circles, are for vertical (1) and horizontal (2) movement and for tilting (3) of the substrate carrier. The jumbo diamond knife with an oversize boat to accommodate large substrates (arrow), here with a piece of plasma-activated silicon wafer mounted onto a slide-sized aluminum carrier (B). 20 µL drops of distilled water placed onto an untreated silicon wafer substrate (C) or on a plasma-activated substrate (D). Four ribbons floating in the knife boat, attached to an ITO-coated coverslip by their lower ends. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Correlation of the LM data with SEM data. Overviews (A, C) and target cells (B, D) recorded with FLM (A, B) and SEM (C, D). (B) is a software zoom, and the original data were recorded with a 40X objective lens on a 1,388 x 1,040 pixel camera chip, while (C) is recorded with 60 nm image pixel size, and (D) with 5 nm image pixel size, illustrating the true increase in resolution in the SEM. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Hierarchical imaging in the SEM using ZEISS Atlas 5 AT. Overview of an array recorded with 1,000 nm image pixels using the SE detector (A). Section sets with the ROI placed on tissue in every section and recorded with 60 nm image pixels (B). Site sets with a serial ROI placed on target cells and recorded with 5 nm image pixels (C). When zooming into such high-resolution images (D), intracellular membrane compartments such as vacuoles (V), nucleus (N), mitochondria (M), and endoplasmic reticulum (arrows) become visible. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Typical problems. 1. Arising from the sectioning process: Ribbons placed on ITO-coated coverslips are ideally straight (A), but irregular compression during sectioning may cause bent (B) or curved ribbons (D), or even folds (C). 2. Caused by handling substrate and ribbons in water, e.g., during sectioning and staining: Light scattering particles on substrate (D), rim of droplets on section (circle in E), or dirt smeared out over tissue due to inadequate washing after staining (F). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplemental Movie S1: FLM image stack. 435 images aligned in Fiji16 using TrakEM17 and saved as movie file (.avi). Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Movie S2: SEM image stack. 210 images aligned in Fiji16 using TrakEM17. The original stack (300 images) of this data set was 15 GB. To downsize the stack from 3.3 GB (after alignment and cropping to only the two target cells), it was scaled in x and y by a factor of 0.2 using Fiji and then saved as .avi movie. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Movie S3: Zooming with different resolution levels in the SEM. Movie created in and exported from the Atlas 5 software in .mp4 format. Please click here to download this file.