Virtual HistologyTM staining protocol [Numira Biosciences, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA]).
Sources: MRM image from Dr. G. A. Johnson, Duke University and µCT image from Numira Biosciences, Inc.; both images reproduced from Bolon et al. [67] by permission of CRC Press.
Figure 5.8 Sex differentiation of neonatal (PND1) mice using anogenital distances (brackets), which are longer in males (left) relative to females (right).
Source: Dr. Cynthia Besch‐Williford, IDEXX and Newbigging et al. [70] with permission of CRC Press.
Histopathologic evaluation is a critical element in phenotyping embryos and neonates since microscopic findings often represent the only evidence of a new phenotype [73]. The first step of the examination is to assess sections at low magnification (i.e. using objectives ranging from 1× to 5×) to observe the general appearance of differentiated organs (Figure 5.13). This portion of the analysis will detect obvious developmental defects in tissues and organs. Special care must be taken to recognize the absence of any missing structures, which may be obvious but sometimes is not (Figure 5.14) [74, 75]. The second step is to assess tissue features at intermediate magnification (4× to 20×) to further define potential target cell populations in affected organs. This task requires detailed understanding of the unique cytoarchitectural features of each region and its major cell types across many stages of prenatal and postnatal development – knowledge that can only be gained by experience. The third step of a well‐designed histopathologic analysis is to fully describe the nature of the structural defects at the organ, cellular, and (if necessary) subcellular levels, using both routinely stained (H&E) and specially processed sections (e.g. to demonstrate molecular biomarkers, especially utilizing immunohistochemistry [IHC]). A successful phenotypic evaluation for prenatal and neonatal mice often will require comparison of possible lesions to normal structures shown in a well‐illustrated and highly annotated rodent developmental anatomy atlases [11–15].
Figure 5.9 Schematic diagram showing necropsy approach for neonatal and juvenile mice. The animal is placed in dorsal recumbency, and the limbs are secured to maintain the “splayed” position. Panel (a): Organs are exposed with four cuts (made in numerical order) through the body wall. The curved arc represented by cuts “2” and “3” follows the contour of the diaphragm, which separates the thoracic cavity (located under “4”) from the abdominal cavity (found under “1”). Panel (b): Photograph demonstrating the location of principal viscera in the thoracic and abdominal cavities of a juvenile (10‐day‐old) mouse as viewed from the ventral aspect. Abbreviations: ht = heart, in = intestine, lv = liver, lu = lung, sp = spleen, st = stomach, th = thymus.
Sources: Diagram, prepared by Tim Vojt, The Ohio State University, is from Newbigging et al. [70] with permission of CRC Press; photograph from Bolon et al. [58] with permission of John Wiley & Sons.
Figure 5.10 Sectioning (Wilson's) technique to allow macroscopic evaluation of defects in large internal organs of near‐term (GD17 and older) mouse embryos and neonates. The schematic diagram (left panel) demonstrates the placement of freehand incisions to expose internal organs. Numbers of the dashed lines in the diagram correspond to the numbered planes in the labeled torso blocks (right panel) of a near‐term embryo that had been fixed in Bouin's solution. Tissue blocks may be processed subsequently for histopathological assessment.
Sources: Diagram (by Tim Vojt, The Ohio State University) and photograph (by Dr. Elizabeth R. Magden, Colorado State University) both from Newbigging et al. [70] with permission of CRC Press.
Figure 5.11 Sectioning (Wilson's) technique to allow macroscopic evaluation of brain defects in near‐term (GD17 and older) mouse embryos and neonates. The numbers identify the position of the tissue block located between two adjacent incisions (dashed lines). Should a microscopic examination of the blocks be desired, the cut surface closest to the number identifying the block should be placed “down” in the cassette. Tissue processing: Bouin's fixation, paraffin embedding, H&E staining. Stain: H&E.
Source: Diagram by Tim Vojt, The Ohio State University; all images from Newbigging et al. [70] with permission of CRC Press.
Figure 5.12 Skeletal double staining may be used to characterize axial patterning defects in near‐term mouse embryos (here GD17) and neonates, with Alcian blue utilized to highlight cartilage while Alizarin red is used to show bone. Panel (a): Vehicle‐treated embryo with normal basal cranial structures. Panel (b): Methanol‐exposed exencephalic embryo (following maternal inhalation throughout neurulation [GD7–9]) showing malformed basal cranium bones exhibiting less cartilage to bone conversion. Abbreviations: bs = basisphenoid, bo = basioccipital, e = ethmoid, n = nasal, p = petrous temporal bone.
Source: Bolon et al. [97] with permission of John Wiley & Sons.
Figure 5.13 Developmental anatomy of a wild‐type GD16.0 mouse embryo demonstrating the anatomic relationship of key structures when viewed in mid‐axial section. Major organs are specified during organogenesis (the period from approximately GD8.0 to GD15.0), and near‐term are fairly easy to recognize with the aid of well‐annotated developmental anatomy atlases and their similarity to adult positions and contours. Major exceptions to this rule are the cerebellum (arrow) and lymph nodes, for which anlagen (organ primordia) form prenatally while the bulk of differentiation occurs after birth. Stain: H&E.
