Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:31:37.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confocal Microscopy System Performance: Axial Resolution1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Robert M. Zucker
Robert M. Zucker*
Affiliation:
Reproductive Toxicology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*
Zucker.Robert@epamail.epa.gov

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.

The confocal laser-scanning microscope (CLSM) has enormous potential in many biological fields. When tests are made to evaluate the performance of a CLSM, the usual subjective assessment is accomplished by using a histological test slide to create a “pretty picture.” Without the use of functional tests many of the machines may be working at sub-optimal performance levels, delivering sub optimum performance, and possibly misleading data. In order to replace the subjectivity in evaluating a confocal microscope, tests were derived or perfected that measure field illumination, lens clarity, laser power, laser stability, dkhroic functionality, spectral registration, axial resolution, scanning stability, PMT quality, overall machine stability, and system noise (1-3). It is anticipated by using this type of test data, performance standards for confocal microscopes will be obtained and the current subjectivity in evaluating CLSM performance will be eliminated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 38 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2004

Footnotes

2

To whom all correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reproductive Toxicology Division (MD- 72), National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; Phone: (919) 541-1585; FAX: (919) 541-4017 e-mail: zucke robert@.epa.gov

1

The research described in this article has been reviewed and approved for publication as an EPA document. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents reflects the views and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use

References

1. Zucker, R.M., O.T., Price, Evaluation of confocal system performance Cytometry, 44:273–294, 2001.Google Scholar
2. Zucker, R.M., Price, O.T., Statistical evaluation of confocal microscopy images, Cytornetry, 44:295–308, 2001.Google Scholar
3. Zucker, RM and Price, O.T., Practical confocal microscopy and the evaluation of system performance. Methods, 18: 447–458, 1999,Google Scholar
4. Centroze, V, and Pawley, J: Tutorial on practical confocal microscopy and use of the confocal test specimen. In Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, second edition. (Pawley J., Ed) Plenum Press. New York 559–567, 1995.Google Scholar
5. Sheppard, C.J.R. and Shotton, D.M.: Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy, Bios Scientific Publishing, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
6. Marjlof, L. and Forsgren, P.O.: Accurate imaging in confocal microscopy in Methods of cell biology, 79-95, ed. Matsumato, B., Academic Press, San Diego, California, 1993.Google Scholar
7. Carter, D.: Practical considerations for collecting confocal images. Methods Mol Biol. Confocal Microscopy Methods and Protocols, edited by Paddock, S., Humana Press, Totowa NJ. 122:35–57 1999.Google Scholar
8 Pawley, J.; Fundamental limits in confocal Microscopy (chapter 2) in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, second edition. (Pawley J., Ed) Plenum Press, New York 19–36, 1995.Google Scholar