Epidermal dimensions at the ultrastructural level

  • S. P. Barton


In most structural studies the tissue under examination is killed by fixation. This effectively reduces the opportunity to examine changes in time and we are left with three spatial dimensions. It is important to appreciate that in most instances the three-dimensional configuration of a tissue is seen as a two-dimensional section. When attempting to quantify dimensions this two-dimensional representation of structure plays an important role in influencing the values derived and affecting the sample size required, which is enormous in the case of ultrastructural observations. To understand the importance of dimensions, it is necessary to study the means of achieving such quantities and the potential errors in their interpretation. To examine one ultrathin section at 10 000 x magnification and extrapolate this sole observation to the whole tissue is akin to examining one blue wall in one room of a multi-storey block and concluding that the whole building is probably blue.


Stratum Corneum Lichen Planus Ultrastructural Level Epidermolysis Bullosa Ultrastructural Observation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aherne, W.A. and Dunhill, M.S. (1982). Morphometry. (London: Edward Arnold)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weibel, E.R. (1979). Stereological Methods. Vol. 1. Practical methods for biological morphometry. (New York: Academic Press)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams, M.A. (1977). Quantitative methods in biology. In Glauert, A.M. (ed.) Practical Methods in Electron Microscopy. Vol. 6. (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waterhouse, J.P. and Squier, C.A. (1969). Measurement of organelle size in relation to their shape: a refinement applied to the epidermal melanosome and basal lamella. J. Microscopy 89, (2), 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klein-Szanto, A.J.P., Andersen, L. and Schroeder, H.E. (1976). Epithelial differentiation patterns in buccal mucosa affected by lichen planus. Virchows Arch. B Cell Pathol., 22, 245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein-Szanto, A.J.P. (1977). Stereologic baseline data of normal human epidermis. J. Investigative Dermatol., 68, (2), 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein-Szanto, A.J.P. (1977). Clear and dark basal keratinocytes in human epidermis — a stereological study. J. Cutaneous Pathol. 4, 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mandelbrot, B.B. (1967). How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self similarity and fractal dimension. Science, 155, 636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mandelbrot, B.B. (1977). Fractals: Form, Chance, and Dimension. (San Francisco: Freeman and Co.)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmes, A.H. (1921). Petrographic Methods and Calculations. (London: Murby)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chalkey, H.W. (1943). Method for quantitative morphologic analysis of tissue. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 4, 47Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    White, F.H., Mayhew, T.M. and Gohari, K. (1982). Stereological methods for quantifying cell surface specialisations in epithelia, including a concept for counting desmosomes and hemi-desmosomes. Br J. Dermatol., 107, 401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merz, W.A. (1986). Streckenmessung an gerichtenen strukturen im Mikroskop und ihre Andwendung zur Bestimmung von Oberflachen-Volumen-relationen im Knochengewbe. Mikroskopie, 22, 132Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lessana-Leibowitch, M., Prado, A., Palangie, A., Lamy, F. and Flandrin, G. (1984). The diagnosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas by morphometric evaluation of the cellular infiltrate using semi-thin sections. Br. J. Dermatol. 110, 511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tidman, M.J. and Eady, R.A.J. (1985). Evaluation of anchoring fibrils and other components of the dermal-epidermal junction in dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa by a quantitative ultrastructural technique. J. Invest. Dermatol. 84 (5), 374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dupuis, D., Rougier, A., Roguet, R. and Lotte, C. (1986). The measurement of stratum corneum reservoir: simple method to predict the influence on in vivo percutaneous absorption. Br. J. Dermatol., 115 (2), 233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindberg, M. (1982). Variation in epidermal structure as a function of different fixation methods. A stereological and morphological study. Ph.D dissertation, Dept. of Medical Biophysics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindberg, M., Johannesson, A. and Forslind, B. (1982). The effect of occlusive treatment on human skin: an electron microscopic study on epidermal morphology as affected by occlusion and dansyl chloride. Dermato-Venerol. (Stockh.), 62, 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© MTP Press Limited 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. P. Barton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations