Connective Tissue Ultrastructure: A Direct Comparison between Conventional Specimen Preparation and High‐Pressure Freezing/Freeze‐Substitution

ABSTRACT It is generally agreed within the microscopy community that the quality of ultrastructure within the connective tissue matrix resulting from high‐pressure freezing followed by freeze‐substitution (HPF/FS) far exceeds that gained following the “conventional” preparation method, which includes aqueous fixation, dehydration, and embedding. Exposure to cryogen at high pressure is the only cryopreservation method capable of vitrifying tissue structure to a depth exceeding 200 μm. Cells within connective tissues prepared by HPF/FS are universally larger, filling the commonly seen void at the juncture between cell and matrix. Without significant shrinkage of cells and the coincident extraction of the cytosolic components, well‐resolved organelles are less clustered within an expanded cytosol. Much of the artifact from “conventional” methods occurs as large space filling and also smaller fibril‐associated proteoglycans are extracted during fixation. However, the visualization of some matrix features by electron microscopy is actually dependent on the collapse or extraction of these “masking” components. Herein, we argue that an impression of ultrastructure within commonly studied matrices, in particular skin, is best gained following the evaluation of both conventional preparations and tissue prepared by HPF/FS. Anat Rec, 2019. © 2019 American Association for Anatomy