Why the study?
Sarcomere length regulates myocyte contraction, but standard optical methods only visualize Z-disk structures, unlike second-harmonic generation microscopy which visualizes A-bands directly.
Second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy may serve as a superior 'gold standard' for evaluating sarcomere length variability in cardiomyocytes compared to fluorescent imaging due to reduced optical interference.
SHG microscopy enables direct A-band sarcomere imaging; leaves open routine adoption in myocyte contraction research.
Sarcomere length (SL) and its variation along the myofibril strongly regulate integrated coordinated myocyte contraction. It is therefore important to obtain individual SL properties. Optical imaging by confocal fluorescence (for example, using ANEPPS) or transmitted light microscopy is often used for this purpose. However, this allows for the visualization of structures related to Z-disks only. In contrast, second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy visualizes A-band sarcomeric structures directly. Here, we compared averaged SL and its variability in isolated relaxed rat cardiomyocytes by imaging with ANEPPS and SHG. We found that SL variability, evaluated by several absolute and relative measures, is two times smaller using SHG vs. ANEPPS, while both optical methods give the same average (median) SL. We conclude that optical methods with similar optical spatial resolution provide valid estimations of average SL, but the use of SHG microscopy for visualization of sarcomeric A-bands may be the "gold standard" for evaluation of SL variability due to the absence of optical interference between the sarcomere center and non-sarcomeric structures. This contrasts with sarcomere edges where t-tubules may not consistently colocalize to Z-disks. The use of SHG microscopy instead of fluorescent imaging can be a prospective tool to map sarcomere variability both in vitro and in vivo conditions and to reveal its role in the functional behavior of living myocardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lookin et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: