Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Quality Assurance Testing for Modern Optical Imaging Systems

  • Robert F. Stack (a1), Carol J. Bayles (a2), Anne-Marie Girard (a3), Karen Martin (a4), Cynthia Opansky (a5), Katherine Schulz (a5) and Richard W. Cole (a1)...

Abstract

The days of being able to ascertain instrument performance by simply peering through the eye pieces at a specimen are gone. However, users and granting agencies need to be confident that data collected on these instruments is uniform and quantifiable both over time and between instruments. Ideally, a LASER should not fluctuate, illumination should be completely uniform, and colors should be perfectly aligned. To check the current performance of imaging equipment, we conducted a worldwide research study utilizing three image-based tests: long-/short-term illumination stability, co-registration of signals across various wavelengths, and field illumination uniformity. To differentiate between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” performance, the deviation in illumination power could not exceed 10% (long term) or 3% (short term), the difference in the center-of-mass of imaged multicolored beads could not exceed >1 pixel between different wavelengths, and field illumination values could not exceed 10% (horizontal) or 20% (diagonal) deviation. This study established the current state of microscope performance through simple, efficient, and robust tests, while defining relative standards to assist cores in maintaining their instruments in optimal operating conditions. We developed cross-platform performance standards that will improve the validity of quantitative measurements made using various light microscopes.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author. E-mail: rcole@wadsworth.org

References

Hide All
Bustin, S.A., Benes, V., Garson, J.A., Hellemans, J., Huggett, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R., Nolan, T., Pfaffl, M.W., Shipley, G.L., Vandesompele, J. & Wittwer, C.T. (2009). The MIQE guidelines: Minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem 55(4), 611622.
DeRose, P.C. & Resch-Genger, U. (2010). Recommendations for fluorescence instrument qualification: The new ASTM Standard Guide. Anal Chem 82(5), 21292133.
Guterman, L. (2010). Access sparks action. NCRR Reporter 34(1), 48.
Latterich, M. (2006). Publishing proteomic data. Proteome Sci 4, 8.
Nesvizhskii, A.I., Vitek, O. & Aebersold, R. (2007). Analysis and validation of proteomic data generated by tandem mass spectrometry. Nat Methods 4(10), 787797.
Pawley, J. (2000). The 39 steps: A cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. BioTechniques 28(5), 884886.
Pawley, J. (2006). Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy. New York: Plenum.
Reiss, S.M. (2010). Quality and standards: Making bioimaging measure up. BioOptics World 3(1), 1418.
Rosenthal, C.K. (2009). Light microscopy: Contrast by interference. Nature Milestones | Milestone 8.
Sharma, D. (2010). Standardized units for reproducible imaging experiments. Biophotonics (September), 3235.
Zucker, R.M. (2006a). Quality assessment of confocal microscopy slide-based systems: Instability. Cytometry A 69(7), 677690.
Zucker, R.M. (2006b). Quality assessment of confocal microscopy slide based systems: Performance. Cytometry A 69(7), 659676.
Zucker, R.M. & Price, O. (2001). Evaluation of confocal microscopy system performance. Cytometry 44(4), 273294.

Keywords

Quality Assurance Testing for Modern Optical Imaging Systems

  • Robert F. Stack (a1), Carol J. Bayles (a2), Anne-Marie Girard (a3), Karen Martin (a4), Cynthia Opansky (a5), Katherine Schulz (a5) and Richard W. Cole (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed