The dissection protocol presented above can be used to generate high-quality samples for microscopy analysis of IFM myofiber and sarcomere morphology from as early as 8 h after puparium formation (APF) using the open-book method (step 3) through adult stages using the hemithorax dissection approach (steps 1 and 2). These dissections have been applied to investigate muscle and sarcomere formation18,42,49, transcription factor function50,51, and RNA regulation37,38, among others. The representative results provided below demonstrate the compatibility of this protocol with different fixation methods, detail common dissection artifacts, and use the SmnE33 mutant phenotype to illustrate the utility of this protocol to address morphological and cell biological questions in the IFM model.
IFM dissection is compatible with multiple fixation methods
A critical aspect of sample preparation for histochemistry or immunofluorescence samples is accurate preservation of cellular structures through fixation. Fixatives preserve tissue structure and morphology by preventing degradation and stabilizing protein and lipid structures through crosslinking52,53. Different classes of fixatives, for example, aldehyde-based versus organic solvents, have different penetration and cross-linking efficiencies and differentially impact antibody-target recognition by targeting distinct functional groups53,54. IFM dissections are compatible with multiple fixation methods, including 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), 9% glyoxal, and methanol fixation (Figure 6), emphasizing the general utility of this dissection protocol.
To compare sarcomere size and morphology with the application of different fixation methods, hemithorax dissections of 1 day adult w1118 flies were performed. 4% PFA fixation in either phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Figure 6A,E) or relaxing solution (RS) (Figure 6B,F) was compared. Relaxing solution contains ATP and is recommended for use when quantifying sarcomere dimensions to preserve sarcomeres in their relaxed state20,55 (see Supplementary File 1). 4% PFA fixation effectively preserves sarcomere morphology, but a significant difference in sarcomere width was seen between 4% PFA fixation in PBS vs. RS (Figure 6I,J). Fixation in methanol preserved myofiber and sarcomere structure (Figure 6C,G), but sarcomeres were significantly shorter and thinner than with 4% PFA fixation (Figure 6I,J). IFMs could be effectively preserved with an overnight 9% glyoxal fixation (Figure 6D,H) (3% glyoxal fixation was ineffective), which also significantly altered sarcomere width as compared to 4% PFA fixation (Figure 6I,J). In conclusion, IFM hemithoraces can be effectively preserved with multiple fixatives. However, as both fixative and buffer can influence the measurement of sarcomere dimensions, experiments should be designed with proper controls and a well-defined and consistent fixation protocol.
Common dissection and fixation artifacts in IFMs
One challenge with microscopy, especially for new users and trainees, is distinguishing technical artifacts from bone-fide phenotypes. To aid with this distinction in Drosophila IFMs, representative data of the most commonly observed artifacts and dissection failures is presented (Figure 6). Fixation protocols require optimization of the type, concentration, and length of fixation to avoid under- or over-fixation52,53,54. Using a fixation time course of w1118 1 day adult hemithorax dissections incubated in 4% PFA in relaxing solution, it was observed that while 15- or 30-min fixation time accurately preserves sarcomere morphology, a 7-min fixation produces inconsistent sarcomere morphologies (Figure 6K-M). In addition, the tissue is less rigid with a shorter fixation time, making it more difficult to cut and bisect the thorax without damaging the IFMs. Additional artifacts can arise during both the cut and the mounting process. IFM myofiber structure can appear irregular if the blade is dull and causes ripping or fraying (Figure 6N) or if the blade slips or the cut is angled (Figure 6O). If forceps come into direct contact with fixed IFMs during handling or mounting, they make an impression that can lead to divots or stretching and can pull the sarcomeres apart (Figure 6P). Stretching or deformation of the thorax, either during cutting, handling, or mounting, also pull the sarcomeres apart and result in loss of a clearly demarcated Z-disc (Figure 6Q). Lastly, "sawing" or "rubbing" of the IFMs with a forceps or blade leads to abrasion and unraveling, fraying, and disorganization of myofibrils, especially on the surface of the myofiber (Figure 6R). Potential users should become familiar with these technical artifacts and exclude them from phenotypic analysis.
Developmental progression of the SmnE33 phenotype in IFMs
Open-book and hemithorax dissections are particularly useful to track the developmental trajectory of a muscle phenotype and to pinpoint when in development a gene of interest acts or myofibril phenotypes arise. The IFM developmental phenotype of SmnE33, a hypomorphic allele of the RNA-binding protein Survival motor neuron (Smn)39 is presented as representative data illustrating the broad utility of open-book and hemithorax dissections.
The small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs) that form the spliceosome, the macromolecular complex which catalyzes the splicing reaction to generate mRNAs7, are assembled by the SMN complex. The SMN complex, consisting of Survival motor neuron (Smn) and Gemin proteins, is required for viability in all organisms56. Reduced SMN levels in humans lead to the severe inherited neuromuscular disorder Spinal Motor Atrophy (SMA)21. Drosophila has been used as a model to understand the etiology of SMA and cellular function of Smn, including the development of the hypomorphic allele SmnE33. SmnE33 flies are viable and fertile, but cannot fly or jump39. While SmnE33 flies have motor neuron arborization defects, they also display disorganized IFM structure and a loss of flight-muscle specific Actin88F expression39,57. SMN is co-localized with alpha-actinin at the Z-disc in flies and mice39, suggesting that Smn may have a muscle-specific function.
To gain a better understanding of when myofibril structure is lost and Smn function is required in developing muscle, a developmental time course analysis of the SmnE33 phenotype in IFMs at 26 h APF, 72 h APF, and 1 to 5-day adult was performed. While control w1118 IFMs at both 72 h APF and in adult have strong phalloidin stained F-actin signal (Figure 7E,E',I,I') and regular sarcomere structure (Figure 7G,G',K,K'), phalloidin signal is dramatically reduced (Figure 7F,F',J,J') and sarcomere structures are absent (Figure 7H,H',L,L') in SmnE33 IFMs. F-actin is instead observed in net-like structures around nuclei or in irregular bundles or "starburst" structures in the cytoplasm (Figure 7H,H',L,L'), consistent with a loss of Act88F expression18,39 and an inability to assemble thin-filaments. Open-book dissections were performed to examine the SmnE33 phenotype at 26 h APF and revealed that early IFM development proceeds normally in SmnE33. Comparable to w1118 control IFMs (Figure 7A,A',C,C'), SmnE33 flies have 6 dorsal longitudinal IFM fibers per hemithorax, form organized F-actin cables at the myofiber periphery prior to myofibrillogenesis (Figure 7B,B'), and display a mesh-like F-actin network throughout the myofiber (Figure 7D,D'). These results indicate that initial stages of IFM differentiation proceed normally, while Smn is necessary in later stages of IFM development to sustain Act88F expression and build sarcomeres. Importantly, these representative results illustrate the phenotypic detail and resolution that can be achieved by open-book and hemithorax dissections.

Figure 1: Hemi-section dissection of adult IFMs. (A) Position an adult fly in 1x PBS on a microscope slide. (B) Using a forceps (cyan, dot) to stabilize the fly, remove the head with a scissors (orange). (C-E) Remove the left (C) and right (D) wings, and the abdomen (E). (F) Discard the head, abdomen, and wings, and transfer the thorax to fixative. (G,H) Orient a fixed thorax on a slide in a drop of 1x PBS-T with the posterior (P) and the scutellum pointing up (G), using a forceps to stabilize the orientation (H). (I-K) Use a cryostat blade to cut the thorax in half (I-J), to generate two thorax hemi-sections (K). (L) Diagram of a cryostat blade and a thorax, illustrating the position of the sagittal cut to produce hemi-sections. The blade is slid to the right to notch the scutellum of the thorax, and then moved downward in a smooth motion (yellow arrows) to cut the thorax (dotted red line). (M,N) Schematic of a coronal (M) and transverse (N) view of the thorax, illustrating the position of the major muscle groups and the position of the cut (between the yellow triangles). The orientation of the thorax is indicated (L, left; R, right; V, ventral; D, dorsal; A, anterior; P, posterior). Scale bars = 1 mm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Pupal staging and features of pupal development. (A) Male and (B) female pupae can be distinguished as white pre-pupae at 0-2 h APF. Male pupae have paired, round, translucent structures (the developing testis) towards the posterior (arrows). (C) Table of features that serve as hallmarks of pupal development. Features include maturation of the pupal case, head eversion, and detachment of the pupa from the pupal case, development of eye pigmentation, pigmentation of the bristles, wings, legs, epandrium, and cuticle, and visibility of the virgin spot (meconium). Eye color and pigmentation darken progressively. The timing and stages of pupal development labeled at the top of each column in the table (timepoints denoted in black text, corresponding stage in pupal development below in blue text) were previously defined by Bainbridge and Bownes19,41. (D-E) Time course of pupal development at 0-2 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h APF in an intact pupa with red eyes (D; Mef2-Gal4, fln-GFP) and in a pupa with orange eyes dissected out of the pupal case (E; Fln-Gal4). Note the progressive darkening of the eyes and bristles from 48 h to 96 h APF. (F) Examples of pupal lethality at early, middle, and late timepoints of development. Pharate lethal flies are fully formed, but fail to completely eclose from the pupal case. Scale bars = 1 mm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Hemi-section dissection of pupal IFMs (>48 h APF). (A-H) Removal of a pupa from the pupal case. Affix pupae to a strip of double-stick tape (A,B). Tease open at the anterior ridge (C) and remove the operculum (D) using a pair of Dumont #5 forceps (blue, arrow denotes direction of movement, dot is stationary). Use forceps to cut open (E) and peel away (F) the pupal case in strips (G). Strips of the pupal case are adhered to the double-stick tape. After exposing the abdomen, lift the pupa out of the case (H). (I) Schematic illustrating the process of dissecting a pupa out of the pupal case. The figure panels corresponding to each step in the schematic are labeled (bottom). The red dotted line marks where the forceps can be inserted without damaging the pupa to cut open the pupal case. (J-L) After removing the pupa from the case (J) and transferring to a microscope slide in a drop of 1x PBS (K), use a scissors to remove the abdomen (L). (M) Discard the abdomen, and transfer the thorax to fixative. (N) After fixation, transfer pupal thoraces to a slide in a drop of 1x PBS-T. Orient the pupa dorsal side up and stabilize with a forceps. (O-P) Use a cryostat blade (O) to cut a pupal hemi-section (P). Placement of the cut is the same as Figure 1 M-N. Scale bars = 1 mm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Open-book dissection of pupal IFMs (<48 h APF). (A) After removing the pupa from the pupal case as shown in Figure 3 A-I, transfer the pupa to 1x PBS in a black silicon dissecting dish. (B-D) Gently push the pupa down to the surface of the silicon dish using a forceps (B), and pin ventral side up using two insect pins (C,D). (E) Open the basal membrane (bm) and cuticle of the head using a scissors (orange). (F,G) Cut along the right (F) and left (G) side. The position of the cut is diagrammed in (Q). (H,I) Lift the ventral section with a forceps (H) and remove with a scissors (I). (J,K) Use a forceps to remove the brain (J), the lateral trunk trachea, and gut (K). (L-M) Use a gentle stream of buffer from a pipette to remove fat bodies and expose the IFMs. (N) Cut the thorax into two leaflets. (O,P) Cut off the leaflets and transfer them to fixative. (Q) Schematic summarizing the steps in an open-book dissection. The figure panels corresponding to each step are labeled (bottom). The top and side views are provided to illustrate placement of the cuts (dotted red line) on the left and right side of the pupa. The wings, legs, and proboscis (labeled) are used to distinguish the dorsal and ventral sides of the pupa. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Sample mounting on microscope slides. (A-D) Coverslip spacers are used to mount thick thorax hemi-section samples. Glycerol (A) is used to affix spacers (#1 coverslips) to a labeled slide (B), and samples are mounted in mounting medium in the space between the spacers (C). Late pupae and adult thoraces require two #1 coverslip spacers (D). Mid-pupal timepoints require a single #1 coverslip spacer, and early pupal dissections can be mounted with no spacer. (E-H) Adult hemithorax samples are transferred into mounting medium with a forceps or paintbrush (E). Thoraces are initially randomly oriented (F), and may need to be flipped using a forceps (G) so that the IFMs are oriented up towards the coverslip (H). (I-L) Leaflets from early-pupal open book dissections are transferred for mounting using a forceps (I). Leaflets are randomly oriented (J) and can be flipped using a forceps (K) so that IFMs are facing up towards the coverslip (L). (M-P) After samples are properly oriented, place a coverslip over the samples (M) and tap it even against the spacers (N). Fill around the samples with mounting medium (O), being careful to avoid forming bubbles. Seal all open edges of the coverslip and spacers with nail polish (P) to avoid evaporation of the mounting medium. (Q-R) Images of properly mounted adult thorax samples (Q, 10x magnification) oriented with the IFMs facing up towards the coverslip (R, 20x magnification). (S) A schematic of the completed slide, with samples oriented IFM-up between spacers and nail polish sealing all open edges. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: IFM dissections are compatible with different fixatives. (A-H) Confocal z-projection of myofiber structure (A-D) or single-plane images of myofibril and sarcomere structure (E-H) of control w1118 adult IFM. Hemithorax dissection is compatible with multiple fixation methods, including 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (A,E) or relaxing solution (RS) (B,F), methanol (C,G), or 9% glyoxal solution (D,H). DAPI (1:1000), blue; phalloidin (1:500) stained F-actin, grey. (I,J) Quantification of sarcomere length (I) and width (J) from E-H. The fixation method and buffer can significantly impact measurement of sarcomere length and width. A sarcomere length of 3.040 ± 0.2935 µm with methanol fixation was significantly shorter than measured lengths of 3.271 ± 0.2736 µm, 3.190 ± 0.2586 µm, and 3.217 ± 0.2023 µm with PFA (PBS), PFA (RS) and 9% glyoxal fixation, respectively (p < 0.001). Sarcomere width was significantly different between all fixation methods tested (PFA (PBS), 1.410 ± 0.1331 µm; PFA (RS), 1.284 ± 0.2514 µm; methanol, 1.280 ± 0.1538 µm; and 9% glyoxal fixation, 1.137 ± 0.2032 µm). Boxplots are shown with Tukey whiskers with outlier data points marked as black dots. Significance was determined by ANOVA with a post hoc Tukey test (**, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001). (K-M) Single-plane confocal images of a fixation time course of adult w1118 in 4% PFA in RS fixation, demonstrating that fixation times of 15 (L) or 30 (M) min, as compared to 7 min (K), result in well-preserved and consistent sarcomere structure. (N,O) Z-stack projections of adult Act88F-Gal4 IFMs fixed in 4% PFA demonstrating dissection artifacts in myofibers.Common artifacts include cut, frayed, or partial myofibers from a dull blade (N) or an angled cut (O). (P-R) Single-plane confocal images of adult w1118 samples fixed in 4% PFA in PBS demonstrating common dissection artifacts in sarcomeres and myofibrils. Common technical artifacts include irregular stretching of sarcomeres due to contact with forceps while mounting (P), pulling Z-discs out of register by stretching myofibers during longitudinal cuts (Q), and frayed, disorganized, or curling myofibrils due to abrasion or a dull blade (R). DAPI (1:1000), blue; phalloidin (1:500) stained F-actin, grey. Scale bar = 100 µm (A-D, N-O), 5 µm (E-H, K-M, P-R). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Application of dissections to investigate the developmental IFM phenotype of SmnE33. (A-D) Muscle structure in early pupae at 26 h APF. Single-plane confocal image of myofiber structure (A, A', B, B') and myofibril and sarcomere structure (C, C', D, D') in control (A, A', C, C') and SmnE33(B, B', D, D'). Both control and SmnE33 have six IFM myofibers per hemithorax and form F-actin cables. (E-H) Muscle structure in late pupae at 72 h APF. Z-projection image of myofiber structure in control (E, E') and SmnE33 (F, F'). IFMs in SmnE33 are present based on DAPI staining but lack a strong F-actin signal. Single-plane confocal images reveal that control IFMs have a highly organized sarcomere structure (G, G'). By contrast, SmnE33 IFMs (H, H') have abnormal star-like F-actin structures (yellow arrows) and lack the organized sarcomere structure observed in control IFMs. (I-L) Adult muscle structure in control (I, I', K, K') and SmnE33(J, J', L, L'). Z-projection (I,J) and single-plane confocal images (K,L) reveal greatly reduced F-actin content and abnormal actin structures (yellow arrows) in SmnE33IFMs. DAPI (1:1000), blue; phalloidin (1:500) stained F-actin, magenta or grey. Scale bar = 50 µm (A, B), 10 µm (C, D, G, H, K, L), 100 µm (E, F, I, J). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary File 1: A detailed description of the fixation and staining methods used in the text and in particular to generate the data shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Additional information on determining dilutions of primary antibodies is included. A list of buffer components and recipes used in this protocol is also provided. These data motivate the dissection protocol and demonstrate its utility for confocal microscopy and analysis of developmental IFM phenotypes. Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Figure 1: Flow diagram of steps in hemithorax dissection of adult IFMs. Textual summary of the steps in Figure 1 to prepare hemithorax IFM sections. After dissection, fixation, and thorax bisection, sections are stained for microscopy analysis. Please click here to download this figure.
Supplementary Figure 2: Flow diagram of steps in hemithorax dissection of pupal IFMs. Textual summary of the steps in Figure 3 to prepare hemithorax sections of pupal IFMs. After removal from the pupal case, pupa are fixed, bisected, and stained for microscopy. Please click here to download this figure.
Supplementary Figure 3: Flow diagram of steps in open book dissection of early pupal IFMs. Textual summary of the steps shown in Figure 4 to perform open-book dissection of pupal IFMs before 48 h APF. After dissection and fixation, epithelial leaflets with attached IFMs are stained for microscopy. Please click here to download this figure.