Back

Ultra-structural analysis of mineralized extracellular matrix in osteogenic monolayers and spheroids: comparison of sample preparation methods

Boscaro, D.; Ludacka, U.; Sikorski, P.

2026-07-08 biophysics
10.64898/2026.07.03.736266 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate evaluation of extracellular matrix (ECM) mineralization at the nano-scale is essential for establishing relevant in vitro bone models. This is particularly important with the development and increased application of three-dimensional (3D) cell models for biological research. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) allows to perform ultra-structural analysis of cells and ECM organization, but its application in in vitro bone models remains limited, due to the potential alteration or loss of the mineral phase during sample preparation. In this study, we compared two TEM sample preparation methods - the conventional chemical fixation and the anhydrous methods - to evaluate their ability to preserve the mineralized ECM in MC3T3-E1 cells cultured as monolayers and as alginate-encapsulated bone spheroids. Chemical fixation preserved cellular ultra-structure and collagen organization, allowing for detailed assessment of cells and ECM organization. Although mineral deposits were detected and their needle-like morphology assessed, characterization of more immature deposits was partially limited by the effects of uranyl acetate and the overall sample preparation process, which could lead to alteration or loss of less stable mineral phases. The anhydrous preparation method resulted in limited preservation of cellular and ECM morphology and did not allow reliable identification of mineral deposits. When applied to spheroids, the chemical fixation method preserved the 3D architecture, collagen-rich ECM and inner mineral deposits, confirming spheroids as a relevant model for bone studies. Overall, these results highlight the need for optimized sample preparation strategies that preserve both ultra-structure and mineral components for accurate nano-scale characterization of bone mineralization.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 1%
15.4%
3
Bone
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Acta Biomaterialia
92 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.6%
5
Advanced Materials Interfaces
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
6
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Materials Today Bio
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
8
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
Advanced Healthcare Materials
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.2%
10
Advanced Biology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
11
Journal of Structural Biology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
RSC Advances
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
13
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
14
The FASEB Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
16
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
17
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.1%
20
Biomaterials Science
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
21
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Endocrinology
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Pharmaceutics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
Nanoscale
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
27
Biomaterials Advances
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
28
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.6%