# Expansion microscopy on lamina

**URL:** <https://forum.microlist.org/t/expansion-microscopy-on-lamina/1098>\
**Category:** Probes & Prep\
**Created:** [August 6, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://forum.microlist.org/t/expansion-microscopy-on-lamina/1098 "2020-08-06T17:50:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LPUoO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc348/32.png) [@LPUoO](https://forum.microlist.org/u/LPUoO)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://forum.microlist.org/t/expansion-microscopy-on-lamina/1098/1 "2020-08-06T17:50:20Z")

</div>

Hi,  
Does anyone have experience with expansion microscopy on lamina ?

I tried the protocol from Gambarotto, D.et al. (2018). Imaging cellular ultrastructures using expansion microscopy (U-ExM). Nature Methods . [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-018-0238-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-018-0238-1)

Below is with methanol fixation. I tried without fixation and after immunostaining I couldn’t see anything.

Below and image of an expanded sample

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/microlist/original/1X/c8d402cb12ca9fd47c21a02251c37c2a1b1656ed.jpeg)

But in reality it should look more like this (below a non expanded sample - not the same used for expansion)

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/microlist/original/1X/43d9477b4f04eaecd4a3cf4be1c778794a9548e3.jpeg)

Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this ?

Thank you

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LPUoO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc348/32.png) [@LPUoO](https://forum.microlist.org/u/LPUoO)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2020, 11:38am UTC](https://forum.microlist.org/t/expansion-microscopy-on-lamina/1098/2 "2020-08-07T11:38:43Z")

</div>

I’m comparing the protocol (that I did) from

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/microlist/original/1X/12378fa63d046fb7d1bd1c6de797ffbc51e812c7.png)  
with the one from  
 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/microlist/original/1X/a6524585a0fabaafc5069604be7eef1bddad9c5d.png) .

I’s say that the major difference (other than the denaturation vs prot K) is that the Boyden one uses Acryloyl-X SE (AcX) to bind the proteins to the polymer matrix and U-ExM doesn’t.

I am unsure why the U-ExM method doesn’t use AcX but I wonder if this it the reason why my expanded sample looks poorly ?