Using the NoiSee workflow to measure signal-to-noise ratios of confocal microscopes.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 02 2019
04 02 2019
Historique:
received:
16
05
2018
accepted:
13
12
2018
entrez:
6
2
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2019
medline:
6
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Confocal microscopy is used today on a daily basis in life science labs. This "routine" technique contributes to the progress of scientific projects across many fields by revealing structural details and molecular localization, but researchers need to be aware that detection efficiency and emission light path performance is of major influence in the confocal image quality. By design, a large portion of the signal is discarded in confocal imaging, leading to a decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) which in turn limits resolution. A well-aligned system and high performance detectors are needed in order to generate an image of best quality. However, a convenient method to address system status and performance on the emission side is still lacking. Here, we present a complete method to assess microscope and emission light path performance in terms of SNR, with a comprehensive protocol alongside NoiSee, an easy-to-use macro for Fiji (available via the corresponding update site). We used this method to compare several confocal systems in our facility on biological samples under typical imaging conditions. Our method reveals differences in microscope performance and highlights the various detector types used (multialkali photomultiplier tube (PMT), gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) PMT, and Hybrid detector). Altogether, our method will provide useful information to research groups and facilities to diagnose their confocal microscopes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30718583
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37781-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-018-37781-3
pmc: PMC6361975
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1165Références
J Microsc. 2007 Dec;228(Pt 3):390-405
pubmed: 18045334
Vision Res. 2013 Sep 20;90:10-4
pubmed: 23643905
Methods. 1999 Aug;18(4):447-58
pubmed: 10491274
J Microsc. 1998 Aug;191(2):128-134
pubmed: 9767475
J Microsc. 2005 Sep;219(Pt 3):122-32
pubmed: 16176252
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 05;8(11):e79879
pubmed: 24224017
J Microsc. 2005 May;218(Pt 2):148-59
pubmed: 15857376
Nat Protoc. 2014;9(6):1367-91
pubmed: 24833175
Methods Enzymol. 2003;360:416-46
pubmed: 12622162
J Biomol Tech. 2015 Jul;26(2):37-44
pubmed: 25802488
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Nov 29;18(1):529
pubmed: 29187165
Cytometry. 2001 Aug 1;44(4):273-94
pubmed: 11500845
J Microsc. 2008 Jul;231(Pt 1):59-69
pubmed: 18638190
Methods Cell Biol. 2014;123:113-34
pubmed: 24974025
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
Methods Cell Biol. 2014;123:449-66
pubmed: 24974042
Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2017 Aug;89:120-124
pubmed: 28606390
Microsc Microanal. 2013 Dec;19(6):1653-68
pubmed: 24103552
Cytometry A. 2014 Nov;85(11):978-85
pubmed: 25132217
Nat Protoc. 2011 Nov 10;6(12):1929-41
pubmed: 22082987
J Microsc. 2006 Jul;223(Pt 1):15-25
pubmed: 16872427
Cytometry. 2001 Aug 1;44(4):295-308
pubmed: 11500846
Nat Methods. 2014 Oct;11(10):981-2
pubmed: 25264772
J Opt Soc Am. 1948 Feb;38(2):196-208
pubmed: 18901781