This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Letter to the Editor


Advanced Techniques for Visualization of Diatom Structures?


Frithjof A.S. Sterrenburg Heiloo, Te Netherlands fass@wxs.nl


In Microscopy Today, January 2011, Piper and Chmela


published an article called “Advanced Techniques for Observation and Photomicrography of Subcellular Structures in Diatom Shells.” Tis paper clamors for some comments of a fundamental nature. Te


techniques presented in the paper are called


“advanced,” but it is difficult to understand why this should be so. Te paper describes observations with the conventional bright-field techniques—including oblique illumination— used since the late nineteenth century. Te optics used were a 120/0.9 water immersion and a planapochromatic oil immersion 160/1.4, both somewhat unusual as regards their magnification, but not “advanced” in the sense that they would be optically superior to the 50/1.00 water or oil immersions and 100/1.4 or 63/1.4 (plan)apochromatic oil immersions that have been on the market for decades. As will be shown, any such “advanced” performance of the lenses used is not borne out by the photomicrographs presented. Where the paper


It is difficult to understand how the authors concluded


that the “perforations”—the puncta—cannot be resolved in the light microscope. For a century and a half, resolving the “dots” has been a popular sport among microscopists, and thousands of diatom test slides have been marketed to allow them to test their equipment and their mastery of the microscope. An early, and famous, description of resolution into puncta is that by Quekett [1], who resolved Pleurosigma angulatum into puncta in 1848 (sic!). Te reverend W. Smith published good illustrations of resolved species of this difficult genus a few years later [2], and in the later Victorian era a massive collection of perfectly resolved diatom images was already available (for example see references [3, 4]). Te diatom “Surirella gemma” discussed and illustrated by


is completely mistaken is in the


description, interpretation, and iconographic documentation of the fine structure of the diatom exoskeleton. As regards description and interpretation, consider the following quote:


“Within the respective frustules, the bright stripes result from small perforations separated in very short distances that cannot be resolved in light microscopy. Te neighboring dark stripes correspond to small zones that are not perforated . . . ”


Te actual situation is as follows: • In the particular species illustrated, the valve displays fine “lines” (striae) consisting of rows of fine “dots” (puncta). Te statement that these puncta cannot be resolved with the light-microscope is false, as will be discussed further on.


• The puncta are indeed perforations of the valve (as evidenced by the electron microscope), and thus the statement that they form “the bright stripes” intuitively seems convincing. In reality, it is erroneous: whether the rows of puncta appear dark or bright solely depends on how the microscope is focused—it is an optical effect. Te standard manner in which diatomists have always illustrated the puncta (in both drawings and photomicrographs) is the “black dot focus,” which gives the best contrast.


46


Piper and Chmela is a good example of the errors in their paper. Since twenty years, its correct name and authorship have been Petrodictyon gemma (Ehrenberg) D.G. Mann 1990. Resolution of its striae into puncta was obtained in 1870 [5], and for the past century it has been a standard test for an objective with an NA around 1.0. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how the images


in Figure 5 of the paper in question have been obtained with modern—let alone “advanced”—optics. In fact, in sixty years of diatom studies, I cannot remember having seen such an


Figure 1: The diatom Petrodictyon gemma fully resolved in unfiltered white light with an oil immersion objective manufactured a century ago.


doi:10.1017/S1551929511000629 www.microscopy-today.com • 2011 July


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84