As I move to become the next Editor in Chief of Ultrastructural Pathology, I feel obliged to reminisce regarding the role that ultrastructure has played in the research and diagnostic fields over the years and to reflect upon its current role as new disciplines have entered the realm of ancillary techniques to address issues in the clinical and investigational arenas. It is also appropriate to place in perspective the central role that Ultrastructural Pathology has played in broadcasting the discovery and dissemination of new information which has been used to determine criteria, applications, challenges, drawbacks and pitfalls associated with the study of healthy and diseased tissues by electron microscopy.
The first issue of Ultrastructural Pathology was in 1980 when ultrastructure was revered and considered the one ancillary diagnostic technique most likely to provide useful information when pertinent questions were asked in the clinical and research arenas. Today, electron microscopy has been relegated to a secondary role, as techniques such as immunohistochemistry and molecular biology are used more frequently, and in most cases are deemed to be sufficient to address issues at hand. Many electron microscopy laboratories in major medical centers and academic institutions have been closed. More worrisome is that it is becoming difficult to find electron microscopy technicians/technologists and scientists who can perform technical duties with the expertise required, and professionals who can interpret ultrastructural findings are becoming scarce.
Considering the present situation, the role of the Journal today is even much more important than it was 35 years ago when it started, as it should continue highlighting the great value of this technique and become a unified voice for those who still use ultrastructure in their professional activities and are convinced of its unique role. Another crucial role for the Journal is to make an undisputable case for the use of ultrastructural morphological techniques to confirm, improve and complement the information obtained using other ancillary tools. A third key role is to provide information for residents and fellows who today have a void in their understanding of normal and disease processes because they leap from light microscopy to molecular biology without an understanding of cellular morphology at the ultrastructural level.
Amalgamating the information that emanates from several techniques is always preferable than to choose one technique at the expense of another. Under the assumption of unnecessary or excessive spending, electron microscopy is often excluded from the work-up of a difficult case or considered of suboptimal value in a given research project. The first situation compromises patient care and the second makes research results reflect an incomplete understanding of a given subject and often negates possible applications of the important discoveries to translational efforts.
There are many accomplishments in science that have been attained thanks to the availability and use of electron microscopy to address important questions. It is a well-known fact that if ultrastructure would not have been there to provide key evidence, advancement of scientific knowledge would have been significantly compromised in very critical situations. Does this mean that ultrastructure has already fulfilled all its expectations and it has become outdated? Certainly not, and we continue realizing daily that this technique is an essential component of today’s scientific world. Just recall some of the recent viral epidemics and the key role that ultrastructure played finding specific causative agents. There are numerous examples of this reality, but this is not the proper venue for a recount of the many situations where ultrastructural evaluation has provided answers to complex dilemmas that could not be solved by other means.
When a new entity is described in the diagnostic world, electron microscopic characterization is a necessary step in providing validation to the light microscopic, immunohistochemical and molecular evidence. When a scientist makes a discovery that involves tissue evaluation with possible translational value, electron microscopy provides the advanced morphological characterization that is imperative to fully understand the implications of the discovery, validate the findings, and fully visualize the translational impact. Animal models of various diseases require morphological characterization before a molecular understanding can be grasped and information can be translated to the human arena.
Ultrastructural Pathology will continue delivering its powerful message and with the changes that will take place, this will be accomplished in a direct, appreciable and meaningful fashion. Case reports will highlight new and unusual findings. Original clinical and research manuscripts will focus on specific particular areas where electron microscopy provides crucial information. Review articles will serve to synthesize and summarize state-of-the-art information on various subjects. A pro and con section will debate topics that remain unsettled where ultrastructural evaluation can provide unique insights towards resolving existing controversies. A separate section dedicated to technical issues will portray the latest technical advances that can enhance the field of ultrastructure and how these can be applied to a variety of clinical and research settings. Finally, there will be a forum for the readers to submit questions regarding unusual ultrastructural findings for experts to offer their opinions.
Ultrastructural Pathology must be the catalyst to reignite the interest and respect for ultrastructure and to highlight that electron microscopy continues to be a viable technique. Ultrastructural Pathology should remain a written forum for displaying new developments in the field of subcellular microscopy and should attract the most salient publications in the field.
Ultrastructural Pathology will have three Associate Editors. We thank Drs. John Hicks and Josep Lloreta for agreeing to remain in their former positions of Associate Editors and welcome our new Associate Editor, Dr. Elba A. Turbat-Herrera. Drs. Hicks and Lloreta have been very involved with the Journal for a number of years and have made superb contributions to the Journal and to the field of ultrastructural pathology. Dr. Turbat-Herrera brings in great accomplishments in ultrastructural pathology in general and additional expertise, especially in the applications to ultrastructure to the fields of cytology / fine needle aspiration. She will provide new energy and enthusiasm, both very much welcome as the Journal begins a new era.
The Editorial Board is in the process of reorganization and bringing in new members who will provide needed additional expertise to evaluate submissions and help guide the Journal into the future. The purpose is to use various platforms to persuade authors to submit papers to Ultrastructural Pathology and attract their best articles.
I ask the readers to help me in improving the Journal and to become part of the excitement that will prevail as we move Ultrastructural Pathology along new growth pathways to a brighter future that we can all be proud of. Your involvement in the new Ultrastructural Pathology is much appreciated. We need your contributions and support to accomplish our dream to make Ultrastructural Pathology a premier forum for newly generated pathobiological data.