Artifactual mesh hole analysis.
(A) Representative image following HMDS10 drying and vectorial tracing (red) of artifactual mesh holes (magnification, 80k×). (B, C) Quantification of the artifactual mesh hole sizes according to the different HMDS protocols (Table 1) (B), and for HMDS10 (hmds) in comparison with CPD-LT and CPD as shown in Fig 2 (C). **, p <0.01; ***, p <0.001; n.s., non-significant; each data set was compared to hmds1 (B) or hmds (C) using t-tests. ANOVA tests: p = 1.88∙10−21 (B), p = 5.24∙10−8 (C). Scale bars images (B, C): 100 nm. (D, E) Representative images following CPD showing the vectorial tracing of the artifactual mesh holes (red) within the 2-μm band around the nucleus edge (black line) (D; magnification, 10k×), and the definition of the perinucleus region, shown between the red and white lines (E; magnification, 5k×). (A, D, E) Scales bars: 1 μm (A); 5 μm (D); 10 μm (E). (F) Correlation between the artifactual mesh hole areas for the perinucleus and the 2-μm nuclear band following the three SEM preparation protocols (as indicated). AMH, artifactual mesh hole. N = 30, 46, 30, 30 (B, from left to right); N = 46, 37, 28 (C, from left to right); N = 30, 20, 28 (F, hmds, CPD LT, CPD).
