Abstract
SUMMARY Different methods for visualizing cell wall texture are compared: (1) thin-sectioning and staining with potassium permanganate after removal of the cell wall matrix, (2) thin sectioning and on-block staining with uranyl acetate during freeze-substitution, (3) freeze-fracturing of untreated material, and (4) shadow-casting after dry-cleaving of material from which the wall matrix had been removed. Sections mainly give information on the type of texture. The other methods, being surface preparations, yield a clearer picture of the constituent elements, the microfibrils. Thin sections of material fixed in glutaraldehyde and osmium tetroxide and stained on the grid with uranyl acetate and lead citrate proved to be unreliable for determining cell wall texture. The meandering of microfibrils in dry-cleaved and shadow-casted preparations is supposed to be an artefact of this method. It is supposed that the actual width of the crystalline core of the cellulose microfibril is 3·6±1·9 nm, as measured from sections stained with potassium permanganate of material treated with hydrogen peroxide/glacial acetic acid.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.