Reconstruction of Neurofibrillary Tangles in Spinal Cord Cells
The image I chose to study and recreate shows neurofibrillary tangles from spinal cord cells of an adult rabbit, published as Figure 52 in Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates by Santiago Ramón y Cajal to further the study of neuronal cells. The image depicts neurofibrils, the perinuclear plexus, Nissl bodies, and the transverse section of a dendrite in motor cells and a small funicular cell. It was produced by Cajal through a modified Simarro method, which uses silver nitrate to stain the cellular structures and microscopy for imaging. I chose this image because I was drawn to the intricacy of the neurofibrillary tangles, and I thought that it would be an interesting challenge to try to recreate the details of this image accurately. The intricacies and complexities of molecular and anatomical structures are important for a thorough understanding of spinal cord cells, but at some point, the complexities have to be reduced and simplified into a model to be understood and extrapolated to understand other cells. So, do the exact ways the tangles intersect and interact matter? And to what extent? These were the questions I approached the reconstruction with. I knew I would not be able to exactly recreate the image given how complex it is, but I hoped to capture the essence of the image in the final products. I started by printing out the image at 150% magnification to better be able to see the details in the image, which was one of the ways access to improved technology helped in the reconstruction of this image. However, given all the technology we have access to today, the original image seemed quite blurry and posed an additional barrier to recreating it. I started by trying to understand the overall image with a rough painting. I flipped the printout over and traced the outlines of the cells and major tangles, and then used paint to shade in the rest. Mostly due to the thickness of the paintbrush I used, I was unable to really focus on the details of the tangles. I next used tissue paper to do two more reconstructions on the tissue wrap itself, once with pencil and once with a black pen. For the pencil tracing, I approached the image by trying to simplify it into recognizable shapes and elements, leading to a more fragmented reconstructed image. With the pen tracing, I was able to achieve the black and white effects of the original image made with silver nitrate, and tried to follow the lines of the tangles for a cleaner drawing.
Questions before starting:
What is this image for?
This image depicts neurofibrillary tangles from spinal cord cells in an adult rabbit, and was made through a modified Simarro method.
Where is this image coming from? What do we know of its sources? Its audience?
This image is from Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates by Santiago Ramón y Cajal. Cajal was a neuroscientist and published his experimental findings and studies of vertebrate nervous systems in this piece. It was intended for the scientific community.
Materials and Measurements:
Can we identify all the materials needed to make it?
The original image was made with silver nitrate and a microscope, using the Simarro method. The reconstructions were made with paper, tracing paper, pen, pencil, and paint.
Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it?
The original image likely could not have been made with a different method. However, the reconstruction could have been made with a variety of similar tools – Sharpie, canvas, wood carving, etc.
What is the stability of the material over time?
The original image is highly stable, as silver staining yielded pretty stable staining and once the stained cells were imaged, the image did not decay. The reconstructed images are also quite stable, although the tissue paper is relatively fragile.
Tools and Equipment:
What tools are necessary?
For the reconstruction, in addition to paper and a writing tool, a paperweight, printout of the original image, and light are necessary.
What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools?
In order to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools like silver nitrate staining, I decided to observe the effects of silver nitrate staining – a black and white image. Thus, for my reconstruction, I will be using black pen/ paint on white paper.
How do technological changes impact our interpretation/ expectation of the image?
Technological advances have made images very clear and fine in today’s day. Thus, the original image seemed quite blurry to me, and it will be a challenge to recreate the fine details and the blurriness of the original image.
Field Note #1
Date: 02.06.2022
People Involved: Surabhi (me)
Location: Brown College
Reconstruction conditions: on a sturdy table, dim lighting, bright light from windows filtering in, noise from TV, warm room
Time and duration: 4:21 PM – 5:17 PM
Equipment and tools used: paintbrush, water, acrylic black paint, printout of 150% magnified original image, paperweight, black pen
Subjective factors: My hands were shaky from caffeine, which made the process more difficult. This was my first reconstruction of the image, so I felt overwhelmed by the complexity of the neurofibrillary tangles. I also was frustrated by the dim lighting. The paint was very runny and fluid, which did not lend itself well to the aim of a precise reconstruction.
Prior knowledge: While I have taken a class on neurological systems before and learned a little bit about spinal cord cells, I did not know much about neurofibrillary tangles. I knew the general structure of neurons, so I was familiar with the outlines of the motor cells.
Reflection: I turned over the printout of the enlarged image, and traced the cells and major tangles in the image with a pen. This part went pretty smoothly, although it gave me an inverted image. Comparing the inverted image and the original, they look pretty different, which is why I preferred using tracing paper in the following reconstructions. A lot of the lines and tangles weren’t very clear, and it was difficult to distinguish “lines” and “blurs,” because my goal was to outline the lines and use watered down acrylic paint to represent the blurs. I also noticed gray smears throughout the original image, and wanted to represent those with paint. It was really difficult to be exact, and I realized my paintbrush was too thick to do a good tracing of the image. Further, the watered down acrylic paint was inconsistent and ran, leading to more imprecision. So, with this reconstruction, I focused on larger structures and the contrast of lines and blurs in different areas of each cell. The resulting image is definitely not an accurate reconstruction, but it helped me get a better sense of the image and start paying attention to the details. I also chose not to recreate the labels, because I felt they distracted from the image of the cells.
Photo:
Questions that arise:
How can I get a more precise representation of this image?
Does my imperfect replication still get the “essence” of the image across?
I picked out the more pronounced parts of this image to recreate. How does my subjectivity and how do my senses affect the objectivity of the reconstructed image?
Field Note #2
Date: 02.07.2022
People Involved: Surabhi (me)
Location: Brown College
Reconstruction conditions: on a sturdy table, dim/ warm lighting, night, cold room, silent
Time and duration: 9:15 PM – 10:10 PM
Equipment and tools used: plain tissue paper, printout of 150% enlarged image, pencil, phone flashlight
Subjective factors: I felt the tissue paper move around quite a bit, and seemed quite fragile. So, it affected how much I could move my hand while tracing. I also was trying to work with only my right hand, and not use my left hand, as I had hurt my wrist. The lighting was especially dull, which affected my tracing ability. I did not really have a way to set up my phone flashlight in a consistent, stable location, so I only used it when I really needed to. The pencil was quite scratchy, and was a little annoying given the silence I was working in.
Prior knowledge: I was familiar with the structure of spinal cord cells, but I did not know much about neurofibrillary tangles.
Reflection: This time, I recreated the image by laying tracing paper over an enlarged copy of the original. So, the reconstruction was not inverted like last time, which I much preferred. The pencil I used had a relatively fine tip, and since I was only using one medium this time, it felt a lot easier. I started in the center of cells and tried to simplify the tangles into easily identifiable shapes and elements. While this made things easier at first, it made it very difficult to connect these elements together at the end, and led to a more fragmented reconstruction than I was hoping for. This reconstruction was a lot more precise and detailed than the last one. However, I could not really capture the “blurs” present in the original image, and the resulting image still seemed simplified from the original. I once again chose not to include the labels because it felt like it distracted from the focus of the image.
Photo:
Questions that arise:
How do I capture the blurriness and the more definite lines of the original image? Is it possible to recreate by hand and with my level of artistic ability?
Why did I gravitate towards simplifying the original image into recognizable elements, and then connect the entire image together at the end?
Why did I decide the labels were distracting from the rest of the image? Is it because those were imposed on the original image of the cells, and felt too “man-made”?
How can I create a fuller, more continuous image?
Do the exact placement and weaves of the tangles matter? Or are the general qualities of the structures within the cells that things that matter?
Field Note #3
Date: 02.12.2022
People Involved: Surabhi (me)
Location: Brown College
Reconstruction conditions: on a sturdy table, bright natural lighting, cold room, music playing
Time and duration: 1:11 PM – 2:47 PM
Equipment and tools used: plain tissue paper, printout of 150% enlarged image, black pen, paperweight
Subjective factors: The light was very helpful in this reconstruction. My hand was shaky, and I occasionally made some errors that I could not re-do since this reconstruction was made with a pen. The pen was very smooth, compared to the pencil, which made it easier to follow through with longer lines.
Prior knowledge: I knew the basic structure of neurons and spinal cord cells.
Reflection: For this reconstruction, I held the tracing paper and enlarged image down with a paperweight, which was very helpful. Like the pencil reconstruction, the image was not inverted. For this image, I tried to follow through with lines as much as possible. I still had some breaks because my hand would grow tired, but the image felt less fragmented. The ink blotted at points I stopped and started, which affected the quality of the reconstruction. I had already done two prior reconstructions, so I felt more familiar with the image, which was helpful in improving my accuracy of the details. After doing the basic outlines of the cells, I started at the top left side of the page so that the ink wouldn’t smear, and worked my way to the bottom right of the page. Trying to follow whole lines was interesting because I paid more attention to the intersection of the tangles, and got a really strong impression of the intertwining and web-like quality of the neurofibrillary tangles. I also noticed how the edges of some of the cells and nuclei were not as discrete, but was unable to fully represent that because I started by drawing the cells’ outlines.
Photo:
Questions that arise:
Why did I start with outlines of the cells? Why are we in general so preoccupied with defining boundaries clearly?
How could I have represented the blurriness of the more matted tangles?
How do the way the cells overlap affect my perception of the tangles in each cell?