Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:41:39.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defining the Tools: an Analysis of Laser Scanning Confocal and Wide-Field/Restoration Fluorescence Microscope Imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Jason R. Swedlow
Affiliation:
Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, MSI/WTB Complex, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 5EH, Scotland
Paul D. Andrews
Affiliation:
Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, MSI/WTB Complex, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 5EH, Scotland
Ke Hu
Affiliation:
Dept. of Biology Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
David S. RoosT
Affiliation:
Dept. of Biology Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
John M. Murray
Affiliation:
Dept. of Cell and Developmental Biology Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
Get access

Abstract

Digital fluorescence microscopy is now a standard tool for determining the localization of cellular components in fixed and living cells. Two fundamentally different imaging technologies are available for imaging fluorescently labelled cells and tissues, in either the fixed or living state. The laser scanning microscope uses a diffraction-limited focused beam to scan the sample and develop an image point by point. in addition, a pinhole placed in a plane confocal to the specimen prevents emitted out-of focus fluorescence from reaching the photomultiplier tube (PMT) detector. By combining spot illumination and selection of infocus fluorescence signal, the laser scanning confocal microscope (LSCM) creates an image of the specimen largely free of out-of-focus blur. By contrast, a wide-field microscope (WFM) illuminates the whole specimen simultaneously and detects the signal with a spatial array of point detectors, usually a charge-coupled device camera (CCD). This approach collects an image of all points of the specimen simultaneously and includes all the out-of-focus blurred light. Subsequent restoration by iterative deconvolution generates an estimate of the specimen, largely free of out-of-focus blur. While many other fluorescence imaging modalities exist, these two methods represent the majority of the fluorescence imaging systems currently in use in biomedical research.

Type
Challenges of Confocal Microscopy in the 21st Century (Organized by S. Paddock)
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Inoué, S. in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy (ed. Pawley, J.) 117 (Plenum press, New York, 1995).Google Scholar
2.Agard, D. A., Hiraoka, Y., Shaw, P. & Sedat, J. W.Fluorescence microscopy in three dimensions. Methods Cell Biol. 30, 353377 (1989).Google Scholar
3.Swedlow, J. R., Sedat, J. W. & Agard, D. A. in Deconvolution of Images and Spectra (ed. Jansson, P. A.) (Academic Press, New York, 1997).Google Scholar
4.Nichols, B. A. & Chiappino, M. L.Cytoskeleton of Toxoplasma gondii. J. Protozool. 34, 217226(1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hyman, A. A. & Mitchison, T. J.An assay for the activity of microtubule-based motors on the kinetochores of isolated Chinese hamster ovary chromosomes. Methods Cell Biol. 39, 267276(1993).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. J.R.S. is a Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow.Google Scholar