$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
By using the procedure presented above, we show results on two image stacks of different sizes, to demonstrate how the flexibility of the tools makes it possible to scale up the procedure to larger datasets. In this instance, the two 3DEM datasets are (i) P14 rat, somatosensory cortex, layer VI, 100 µm x 100 µm x 76.4 µm4 and (ii) P60 rat, hippocampus CA1, 7.07 µm x 6.75 µm x 4.73 µm10.
The preprocessing steps (Figure 1) can be performed the same way for both datasets, simply taking into account that a larger dataset such as the first stack, which is 25 GB, requires more performing hardware to handle large data visualization and processing. The second stack is only 1 GB, with a perfectly isotropic voxel size.
The size of the data might not be directly related to the field of view (FOV), rather than to the resolution of the stack itself, which depends on the maximum pixel size of the sensor of the microscope, and the magnification of the stack. In any case, logically, larger FOVs are likely to occupy more physical space compared to smaller FOVs, if acquired at the same resolution.
Once the image stack is imported, as indicated in section 1 of the protocol, in Fiji software (Figure 1A), a scientific release of ImageJ12, one important point is to make sure that the image format is 8-bit (Figure 1B). This because many acquisition software different microscopy companies producers generate their proprietary file format in 16-bit to store metadata relevant to information about the acquiring process (i.e., pixel size, thickness, current/voltage of the electron beam, chamber pressure) together with the image stack. Such adjustments allow scientists to save memory, as the extra 8-bit containing metadata does not affect the images. The second important parameter to check is the voxel size, which then allows the reconstruction following the segmentation to be performed on the correct scale (micrometers or nanometers; Figure 1B).
Stacks might need realignment and/or stitching if they have been acquired using tiling; these operations can be performed within TrakEM2 (Figure 2A), although regarding realignment, automated 3DEM techniques like FIB-SEM or 3View are usually well realigned.
One last step requires filtering and, possibly, downsampling of the stack, depending on which objects need to be reconstructed and whether downsampling affects the recognition of the reconstructable features. For instance, for the larger stack (of the somatosensory cortex of P14 rats), it was not possible to compromise the resolution for the benefit of the reconstruction efficiency, while for the smaller stack (of the hippocampus CA1 of P60 rats), it was possible to do so because the resolution was far above what was needed for the smallest objects to be reconstructed. Finally, the use of the unsharp mask enhances the difference between the membranes and the background, making it favorable for the reconstructions of software like ilastik which uses gradients to pre-evaluate borders.
Following the image processing, reconstruction can be performed either manually using TrakEM2, or semi-automatically using ilastik (Figure 2C). A dataset like the smaller one listed here (ii), that can be downsampled to fit into memory, can be fully segmented using ilastik (Figure 2B) to produce a dense reconstruction. In the case of the first dataset listed here (i), we have managed to load and preprocess the entire dataset with a Linux workstation with 500 GB of RAM. The sparse segmentation of 16 full morphologies was obtained with a hybrid pipeline, by extracting rough segmentation that was manually proofread using TrakEM2.
The 3D analysis of features like surface areas, volumes, or the distribution of intracellular glycogen can be performed within a Blender environment (Figure 3) using custom codes, such as NeuroMorph19 or glycogen analysis10.
In case of datasets containing glycogen granules as well, analysis on their distribution can be inferred using GLAM, a C++ code that would generate colormaps with influence area directly on the mesh.
Finally, such complex datasets can be visualized and analyzed using VR, which has been proven to be useful for the analysis of datasets with a particular occluded view (Figure 4). For instance, peaks inferred from GLAM maps were readily inferred visually from dendrites in the second dataset discussed here.

Figure 1: Image processing and preparation for image segmentation. (a) Main Fiji GUI. (b) Example of stacked images from dataset (i) discussed in the representative results. The panel on the right shows properties allowing the user to set the voxel size. (c) Example of a filer and resize operation applied to a single image. The panels on the right show magnifications from the center of the image. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Segmentation and reconstruction using TrakEM2 and ilastik. (a) TrakEM2 GUI with objects manually segmented (in red). (b) The exported mask from panel a can be used as input (seed) for (c) semi-automated segmentation (carving). From ilastik, masks (red) can be further exported to TrakEM2 for manual proofreading. (d) Masks can be then exported as 3D triangular meshes to reveal reconstructed structures. In this example, four neurons, astrocytes, microglia, and pericytes from dataset (i) (discussed in the representative results) were reconstructed using this process. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: 3D analysis of reconstructed morphologies using customized tools. (a) Isotropic imaged volume from FIB-SEM dataset (ii) (as discussed in the representative results). (b) Dense reconstruction from panel a. Grey = axons; green = astrocytic process; blue = dendrites. (c) Micrograph showing examples of targets for quantifications such as synapses (dataset (i)) and astrocytic glycogen granules (dataset (ii)) in the right magnifications. (d) Mask from panel c showing the distribution of glycogen granules around synapses. (e) Quantification of glycogen distribution from the dataset from panel c, using the glycogen analysis toolbox from Blender. The error bars indicate standard errors. N = 4,145 glycogen granules. (f) A graphic illustration of the input and output visualization of GLAM. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Analysis in VR. (a) A user wearing a VR headset while working on (b) the dense reconstruction from FIB-SEM dataset (ii) (as discussed in the representative results). (c) Immersive VR scene from a subset of neurites from panel b. The green laser is pointing to a GLAM peak. (d) Example of an analysis from GLAM peak counts in VR. N = 3 mice per each bar. Analysis of FIB-SEM from a previous publication28. The error bars indicate the standard errors; *p < 0.1, one-way ANOVA. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.