Scanning Electron Microscope

[K N and P J Harris]

> ==========
> bionet/microbiology #2407, from rmcgehee at teclink.net, 1162 chars, Tue 
 19 Mar 1996 19:26:54 -0
> ----------
> Article: 3358 of bionet.microbiology
> Path: 
cix.compulink.co.uk!news.compulink.co.uk!btnet!dispatch.news.demon.net!d
emon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!lou.t
eclink.net!usenet
> From: Robert McGehee <rmcgehee at teclink.net>
> Newsgroups: bionet.microbiology
> Subject: Scanning Electron Microscope
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:26:54 -0600
> Organization: TECLink Internet Services: info at TECLink.Net
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <314F5EDE.722 at teclink.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: tc2_32.teclink.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
> 
> Hello, I am working on research project using A. tumefaciens and 
needed 
> to take a scanning electron micrograph of them and have had some 
> problems.  Initially, cells were removed from agar plates and dried on 
> copper before being gold-coated.  Upon viewing, the microscope could 
not 
> resolve the different cells, only a large mass.  Is there a special 
> method for viewing bacterial cells under a SEM?  I will try drying 
cells 
> at a significantly less concenetration however.  Any suggestions?
> 
> Robert
> 
> respond: rmcgehee at teclink.net
I've had similar poor results with SEM. It might be that the medium used 
encouraged too much mucilage, gum, capsule etc. Usually due to a high 
C:N ratio. (Remember Agrobacteria are close cousins of Rhizobium which 
can be prolific gum producers.) The gum simply "smooths out" any surface 
details you might see. Try 'em on a weak low CHO medium instead.
Peter Harris,
Department of Soil Science, 
Reading University, UK.