, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 617–627

Positive colloidal thorium dioxide as an electron microscopical contrasting agent for glycosaminoglycans, compared with ruthenium red and positive colloidal iron

  • C. G. Groot


In electron microscopy Thorotrast has been used as a specific contrasting agent for acid glycosaminoglycans. Because of its high atomic number, thorium (Z=90) gives good contrast in the electron microscope, but at present it is less frequently used for this purpose. We prepared a positive colloidal solution of ThO2 without stabilizers to compare its properties with those of ruthenium red and positive colloidal iron for contrasting fetal mouse epiphyseal cartilage. The results indicate that colloidal ThO2, which is easy to prepare in any laboratory, gives better results than ruthenium red and colloidal iron do in this kind of cartilage. Furthermore, as judged from data in the literature and obtained in our laboratory, it penetrates this tissue better than Thorotrast does, probably because of the absence of stabilizers.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. LaClaire JW, Dawes CJ (1975) An ultrastructural and histochemical localization of sulfated polysaccharides in Euchema nudum. J. Agardh. J. Phycol 11 (S):8Google Scholar
  2. Cooper GW, Miller LH (1974) Propanoic acid-ferric oxide hydrosol. Differential cell surface binding and its relation to membrane lipid. J Histochem Cytochem 22:856–867Google Scholar
  3. Curran RC, Clark AE, Lovell D (1965) Acid mucopolysaccharides in electron microscopy. The use of the colloidal iron method. J Anat 99:427–434Google Scholar
  4. Eisenstein R, Sorgente N, Kuettner KE (1971) Organization of extracellular matrix in epiphyseal growth plate. Am J Pathol 65:515–534Google Scholar
  5. Emeis JJ, Wisse E (1971) Electron microscopic cytochemistry of the cell coat of Kupffer cells in rat liver. In: Luzio NR di (ed) RES and immunephenomena. Plenum Press, London, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  6. Geyer G (1973) Ultrahistochemie. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  7. Gustavson GT, Pihl E (1976) Staining of mast cell acid glycosaminoglycans in ultrathin sections by Ruthenium Red. Nature 216:697–698Google Scholar
  8. Luft JH (1971) Ruthenium red and violet. II. Animal tissues. Anat Rec 171:369–415Google Scholar
  9. McCracken MD, Barcellona WJ (1976) Electron histochemistry and ultrastructural localization of carbohydrate containing substances in the sheath of Volvox. J Histochem Cytochem 24:668–673Google Scholar
  10. Matukas VJ, Panner BI, Orbison JL (1967) Studies on ultrastructural identification and distribution of protein-polysaccharide in cartilage matrix. J Cell Biol 32:365–377Google Scholar
  11. Mowry RW (1963) The special value of methods that colour both acidic and vicinal hydroxyl groups in the histochemical study of mucins. With revised directions for the colloidal iron stain, the use of alcian blue 8GX and their combinations with the periodic acid-Schiff reaction. NY Acad Sci 106:402–423Google Scholar
  12. Müller A (1906) Bemerkungen über das Hydrosols des Thoriumoxydhydrats. Ber Dtsch Chem Ges 93:2857–2859Google Scholar
  13. Pease DC (1964) Histological techniques for electron microscopy. Academic Press, New York LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Pihl E, Gustavson GT, Falkmer S (1968) Ultrastructural demonstration of cartilage acid glycosaminoglycans. Histochem J 1:26–35Google Scholar
  15. Reid PE, Culling FA, Dunn WL (1974) The histochemical interpretation of the complex results of methylation upon gastrointestinal tract mucins, with special reference to the periodic acid-Schiff reactivity. J Histochem Cytochem 22:986–991Google Scholar
  16. Revel J-P (1968) A stain for ultrastructural localization of acid mucopolysaccharides. J Microsc 3:535–544Google Scholar
  17. Scherft JP (1968) The ultrastructure of the organic matrix of calcified cartilage and bone in embryonic mouse radii. J Ultrastruct Res 23:333–343Google Scholar
  18. Science Citation Index. Institute for Scientific Informations Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Sorvari TE, Stoward RJ (1970a) Some investigations of the mechanisms of the so called “methylation” reactions used in mucosubstance histochemistry. I. “Methylation” with methyliodide, diazomethane and various organic solvents containing either HCl or thionylchloride. Histochemie 24:106–113Google Scholar
  20. Sorvari TE, Stoward RJ (1970b) Some investigations of the mechanism of the so called “methylation” reactions used in mucosubstance histochemistry. II. Histochemical differentiation of lactone and ester groups in “methylated” mucosaccharides. Histochemie 24:114–119Google Scholar
  21. Sorvari TE, Stoward RJ (1971) Saponification of methylated mucosubstances at low temperatures. Stain Technol 46:49–52Google Scholar
  22. Spicer SS, Lillie RD (1959) Saponification as a means of selectively reversing the methylation blockade of tissue basophilia. J Histochem Cytochem 7:123–125Google Scholar
  23. Te Velde J (1978) Methacrylate embedding in haematohistopathology. Thesis, University of LeidenGoogle Scholar
  24. Verhaak RLOM (1958) Nierafwijkingen na pyelografie met Thorotrast. Thesis, University of UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Vilter V (1968) Contribution à l'étude du méchanisme de la “methylation-saponification” dans l-histochimie des mucines acides. Ann Histochim 13:205–220Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. G. Groot
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Cell Biology and HistologyUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations