Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T05:14:28.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

3D Microscopy: Confocal, Deconvolution or Both?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

J.B. Pawley  and
K. Czymmek
J.B. Pawley
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
K. Czymmek
Affiliation:
Noran Instruments

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Over the past 20 years great improvements have been made in the techniques available for doing 3D fluorescent microscopy on living cells. The first approach, generally referred to as image deconvolution, treats the stack of 2D widefield (WF) image data as merely the sum of a number of discrete point-spread functions (PSF) and uses the computer to find the array of emitters'that, when blurred by the PSF, best fits the stored data. If the PSF is known, only presence of statistical and electronic noise in the data, prevents this best-fit set of emitters from being a perfect image of the dye distribution in the specimen. The crucial role played by noise can be appreciated by comparing images from the Hubbell space telescope in its original condition, even after deconvolution, with images taken after the optics had been repaired.

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , December 1996 , pp. 10 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1996

References

1 Agard, DA, et al. Fluorescence Microscopy in Three Dimensions, Methods in Cell Biology, 30:353-377Google Scholar

2 Pawley, J.B., (ed.) Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, Plenum, NY, 1995 Google Scholar

3 Denk, W. et al., Two-photon laser scanning fluorescence microscopy, Science, 248:73,1990Google Scholar

4 Pawley, J.B., The sources of noise in three-dimensional microscopical data sets, in Threee Dimensional Confocal Microscopyu: Volume Investigation of Biological Specimens, ed. J. Stevens, Academic Press. NY. 47-94, 1994 Google Scholar

5 Pawley, J.B., Blouke, M, and Janesick, J., The CCDiode: An optimal detector for laser confocal microscopes. Proc. SPEl, 2655:41,1996Google Scholar

6 Shaw, P. in #2 (above), chapter 23 and also, van der Voort HTM, and Strasters, K.C., Restoration of confocal images for qualitative image analysis, J. Microsc. 178:165-181,1995Google Scholar