In electron microscopy, it is often challenging to sample representative regions within the sections. We, as an observer, are often biased to look at specific regions drawn to our attention by conspicuous features of the sample, preventing a well distributed, unbiased sampling. Sampling bias can only be avoided if every part of the region of interest gets the same chance of ending up in an electron micrograph1. It is possible to avoid sampling bias without a software solution, for example, by pushing the trackball of the microscope manually without looking at the image, so as to select sampling regions wherever the stage stops. But strictly speaking, this is not a random procedure, because, consciously or subconsciously, the user can have an influence on the movement of the stage, and, moreover, this is not a sophisticated way of selecting sampling regions. Random sampling becomes especially important if pairs of sections are used to assess the number of structures in a certain volume, for example, for stereology1, which requires pairs of sections, a known distance apart. It would also be possible to look only at a single section and estimate the number of specific structures2, but with this approach investigators tend to overestimate the numerical density of larger structures, unless the structures are very small in comparison to the section thickness. Alternative approaches are to reconstruct volumes of tissue from serial sections and thus get the desired data3. But this is very time consuming and not a feasible approach for (bigger) comparative studies.
To overcome these problems, we have developed a workflow that allows the researcher to automatically select samples for obtaining electron micrographs at regular spacing within ultra-thin sections. The position of the electron micrographs is random, allowing unbiased sampling. The approach is suitable both for determining numerical densities of structures (for example, synapses within a certain neuropil volume4,5), and the dimensions of structural features (for example, the width of the synaptic cleft, or the diameter of the postsynaptic density4,5).
The workflow uses a custom-made random point sampling (RPS) software (written in Java script using Scripting software supplied with our microscope) that automatically calculates grid positions within a predefined region of interest in an ultra-thin section. The RPS software moves the stage of the electron microscope to these predefined points, so that an electron micrograph can be made at each point. First, the user defines a region of interest within the thin section. Next, the RPS software calculates grid positions within this region. The x/y coordinates of the first position are created randomly, and the remaining positions are placed at regular grid intervals in respect to the first position. Because every part of the region of interest has the same chance of being examined, this allows minimal data collection. This approach of sampling is also called systematic uniform random sampling (see references6,7 for more details).
For determining the numerical densities of structures, we work with pairs of sections that are a known distance apart. After obtaining an electron micrograph from the first section in one of the predetermined positions, TEM Serial Section software (part of the software package supplied with our electron microscope) moves to the corresponding point in the second section, in order to obtain an electron micrograph of the corresponding location. This is repeated for every location in the predetermined grid. In our approach, a disector is used to count the number of particles in each pair of electron micrographs8,9. A disector consists of a pair of counting frames, one for each section8,9. The numerical density of objects is determined by only counting objects visible on the first section (or reference section) but not on the second section (or lookup section). This allows to estimate the numerical densities of objects in a fast and efficient way8,9. Additionally on single sections, two-dimensional structural features can be measured.
We have applied this workflow successfully to assess differences in synapse numbers in the hippocampus of mice exposed to enriched environment (EE) housing conditions compared to standard environment (SE) housing conditions4,5, and also to evaluate the ultrastructural differences between wild type (WT) mice and neuropeptide Y (NPY) KO mice kept under SE and EE5. Our objective was to look specifically at structural features of neurons, such as the numerical synaptic density, the lengths of the active zone in cross-sections and of the postsynaptic density, the width of the synaptic cleft, and the number of synaptic vesicles, in order to assess changes in neuronal connectivity and activation between the different experimental conditions. Additionally, we were interested in the numerical density of dense-core vesicles (DCV) in neurons to determine the amount of stored neuropeptides in a certain brain area.
Based on the success of our approach for the studies described above, in our next step, we have adapted our workflow to select areas for unbiased elemental analyses within human brain samples. This was done to image iron, which is stored in ferritin molecules in both neurons and glial cells. For this, we compiled a script that allowed us to automate most of the operations for a random screening process of brain sections in a defined area.