Understanding Romanowsky Staining
Understanding Romanowsky Staining
Understanding Romanowsky Staining
9 Springer-Verlag 1987
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, England
Accepted August 2, 1986
Summary. Normal blood smears were stained by the standardised azure B-eosin Y Romanowsky procedure recently
introduced by the ICSH, and the classical picture resulted.
The effects of varying the times and temperature of staining,
the composition of the solvent (buffer concentration, methanol content, & pH), the concentration of the dyes, and
the mode of fixation were studied. The results are best understood in terms of the following staining mechanism. Initial colouration involves simple acid and basic dyeing. Eosin
yields red erythrocytes and eosinophil granules. Azure B
very rapidly gives rise to blue stained chromatin, neutrophil
specific granules, platelets and ribosome-rich cytoplasms;
also to violet basophil granules. Subsequently the azure B
in certain structures combines with eosin to give purple
azure B-eosin complexes, leaving other structures with their
initial colours. The selectivity of complex formation is controlled by rate of entry of eosin into azure B stained structures. Only faster staining structures (i.e. chromatin, neutrophil specific granules, and platelets) permit formation of
the purple complex in the standard method. This staining
mechanism illuminates scientific problems (e.g. the nature
of 'toxic' granules) and assists technical trouble-shooting
(e.g. why nuclei sometimes stain blue, not purple).
Introduction
332
The "Standard-Romanowsky-Giemsa-Stamml6sung" stock
solution (Heyl Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Fabrik, Berlin) had been
produced according to the recent ICSH recommendations by disolving 3 g of azure B perchlorate in 400 ml of dimethyl sulphoxide
at 37~ C, disolving 1 g of eosin Y in 600 ml of methanol, and
mixing the two dye solutions. Stock solution purity was checked
using reverse phase thin layer chromatography (Proctor and Horobin 1986), and found to be satisfactory. Dye standards used for
this were prepared in the laboratory of Prof. D. Wittekind, Freiburg.
The standard working solution was prepared by diluting stock
solution with 0.05 M pH 6.8 HEPES buffer to which had been
added 50 ml/1 dimethylsulphoxide. The volume ratio of buffer to
stock solution was 15:1. The buffer was prepared from N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N1-2-ethanesulphonic acid (Sigma Chemical
Co.) by the procedure of Perrin and Dempsey (1974). Variations
on this standard solution are outlined below.
The standard staining procedure was that recommended by the
ICSH (1984). Fixed smears were stained in a Coplin jar with working solution for 25 min; then rinsed in distilled water for 1 min,
and air dried. Once dry the smears were cleared with Histoclear
(National Diagnostic (UK) Ltd.); and mounted in Polymount, a
polystyrene medium. Variations on this standard procedure are
outlined below.
Staining times were varied, with all other aspects of the standard method remaining the same. Times used were 30, 60 and
90 s; 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 rain; 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 12, 17, 24, and 28 h.
For the longer staining times the staining solutions were changed
every 4 h, to avoid significant dye precipitation.
Staining solutions with reduced dye concentration (both a half
and a tenth of standard) were prepared, using suitable dilutions
with buffer. Smears were stained for 30 s-5 rain.
Stock solutions were prepared using single dyes, both azure
B and eosin Y. These, and the working solutions derived from
them, were prepared in the ICSH-recommended manner, but ommitring one of the dyes. Smears were stained in the standard manner, and also with staining times varied over the range 30 s-72 h.
The pH of the standard working solution was varied by diluting
the stock solution with buffers of different pHs. A 0.0286 M universal buffer (Perrin and Dempsey 1974) was used to obtained working
solutions of pH 4, 6.8 and 8. This was used with staining times
of 25 min, and i and 2 h. A 0.01 M HEPES buffer was used at
pH 6.6, 7.5 and 8; with other variables kept standard.
A high ionic strength working solution was made up with
0.05 M buffer, c.f. the standard 0.01 M. Smears were stained for
the standard time immediately after preparing the working stain,
and also after allowing it to stand on the bench for 2 and 4.5 h.
Working solutions containing extra organic solvent were investigated. The water used to prepare the working solution was partially replaced by varying concentrations of aqueous methanol,
100%, 50%, 25% and 10% by volume. Smears were stained for
25 rain at all methanol concentrations, and also for 2.5 h in the
solution using 25% methanol.
The effects of alternative fixatives were compared. One batch
of smears was fixed in formaldehyde vapour, by standing the slides
in a staining dish above a layer of 40% w/v aqueous formaldehyde.
The system was stood for an hour before inserting the smears.
Fixation time, and subsequent staining times, were varied over
the range 1-30 rain. Another set of smears were fixed in this way
(for 30 and 40 rain), then postfixed in methanol for 5 rain. A third
set was fixed in the standard manner with methanol, then postfixed
for 30 and 40 min in formaldehyde vapour.
Using the standard working stain, the effects of staining temperature were investigated. Coplin jars containing stain were placed
in a water bath, and after equilibration to the desired temperature,
staining was carried out: at 10~ C for 25 rain; at 30~ C for 25 min;
at 35~ C for 5 and 25 min; and at 45 ~ C for 5 min.
Asay of stain in solution was carried out by spectrophotometry.
The stain was filtered and the filtrate diluted with aqueous methanol to yield a final methanol-water volume ratio of 1 : 1. The degree
of dilution was adjusted to provide a maximum absorbance of
333
Table 1. Rates of formation of "the colour purpIe" during Romanowsky staining
Structure stained
Erythrocytes
Lymphocyte azurophil granules
Lymphocyte chromatin
Lymphocyte cytoplasm
Neutrophil chromatin
NeutrophiI specific granules
Platelets
90 s
25 min
28 h
faint pink
very pale purple
faint blue
very pale blue
faint blue
no staining
very pale blue
pink
faint purple
blue
faint blue
blue
faint blue
blue
red
purple
purple
blue
purple
purple
purple
purple
intense purple
intense purple
purple
intense purple
intense purple
intense purple
334
ance following extended periods of staining. Non-artifactual toxic granules are in fact azurophil, not specific, granules; and have average diameters of 0.3 pm (McCall et al.
1969; Spitznagel et al. 1974). The appearance of neutrophils
could therefore vary (from 'agranular' to ' n o r m a l ' to
'toxic') as the pH or the azure B concentration goes from
low to high: a significant technical artifact.
ple did not arise in the cells. Chromatin and azurophil granules stained blue, and neutrophil specific granules failed
to stain at all (c.f. Lillie 1944; Sumner 1980). However
at least with those solutions whose methanol concentrations
were only slightly raised, purple colouration did occur if
staining times were sufficiently extended. The initial blue
colour was only slightly paler than is seen with the standard
solution, so the methanol did not significantly inhibit the
uptake of the leading dye. Azure eosinates are methanol
soluble so the organic solvent could have inhibited formation of azure eosinate. In keeping with this, spectrophometry showed that precipitation of azure eosinate from
staining solutions fell as the methanol content of the solvent
rose.
Finally consider fixation. Formaldehyde and a simple
alcohol such as methanol will have quite different chemical
and physical effects on cells (e.g. Baker 1958, Part I; Horobin 1982, chap 3). Due to chemical modifications of cellular
proteins, formaldehyde inhibits uptake of acid dyes such
as eosin, and enhances uptake of basic dyes such as azure
B. Methanol has no such chemical influences. Physically,
alcohols such as methanol are coagulant fixatives, shattering cell structures which formaldehyde preserves intact.
Shattered cells will stain more rapidly than intact ones, and
alcohol fixation may therefore favour formation of the purple complexes. So both chemical and physical factors could
lead to blue, not purple, chromatin following formaldehyde
fixation; such blueness was in fact observed by us (c.f. Wittekind 1979). To decide which factor had the major influence, blood smears were fixed in the following two sequences: formaldehyde followed by methanol, and methanol followed by formaldehyde. The chemical effects of these
two sequences will be similar. However physical effects of
fixatives are influenced mainly by the first fixative to which
the cells are exposed (Horobin 1982, Fig. 2). As both sequences gave blue not purple chromatin, the chemical effect
of formaldehyde was the major influence on staining. Minor
physical influences also occurred however, since completely
shattered, formalin fixed cell nuclei did stain purple.
It
|
L
~%
f
N
II
~\platelets.
/!
/
%~
~l
and nucleoli
/
-
Possible causes
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. pH too high
2. Staining time too long
3. Azur B concentration too high
1. pH too high
2. Wrong buffer used
3. Staining time too long
a The ICSH reference method, and normal blood and blood smears, are assumed
b Precipitation can give rise either to: lumps of stain on the slide, see A: 3-4; or to pale staining
resulting from loss o f dye from solution, see A : 1-3
336
Acknowledgements. This paper was inspired by the work on Romanowsky staining carried out by Prof. D. Wittekind; who in
addition provided us with samples of pure thiazine dyes. We also
acknowledge Dr. D.J. Goldstein and Prof. A.R. Rogers for the
provision of facilities, and the Berkshire Education Authority for
a subsistance grant to one of us (K.J.W.). The standard azure
B-eosin Y stain was provided by the Community Bureau of Reference of the European Economic Community.
References
Baker JR (1958) Principles of biological microtechnique. Methuen,
London
Bentley SA, Marshall PN, Wade MJ, Galbraith W (1979) Azure
B-eosin staining of blood cells. The effects of variation in stain
formulation and staining technique on stain performance. Anal
Quant Cytol 1 : 179-186
Bessis M (1973) Living blood cells and their ultrastructure. (Translated by RI Weed) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Boon ME, Druijver JS (1986) Routine cytological staining techniques, theoretical background and practice. Macmillan, London
Clark G, Kasten FH (1983) History of staining, 3rd edn. Williams
and Wilkins, Baltimore
Comings DE (1975) Mechanisms of chromosome banding. IV.
Optical properties of the Giemsa dyes. Chromosoma 50:89 110
Elliott K, Knight J (eds) (1975) Biochemistry and pharmacology
of platelets. Ciba Foundation Symposium, New Series No. 35.
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Fedorko ME, Morse SI (1965) Isolation, characterisation, and distribution of acid mucopolysaccharides in rabbit leucocytes. J
Exp Med 121 : 39 48
Goldstein DJ (1963) An approach to the thermodynamics of histological dyeing, illustrated by experiments with azure A. Qu J
Microsc Sci 104:413-439
Goldstein DJ (1965) Relation of effective thickness and refractive
index to permeability of tissue components in fixed sections.
J R Microsc Soc 84:43-54
Hardin JH, Spicer SS (t 971) Ultrastructural localisation of dialysed
iron-reactive mucosubstances in rabbit heterophils basophils,
and eosinophils. J Cell Biol 48:368 386
Horn RG, Spicer SS (1964) Sulfated mucopolysaccharides and
basic protein in certain granules of rabbit leukocytes. Lab Invest 13 : 1-15