Buying a COnfocal Microscope
Locked
|
Hello All,
Sorry to bother everyone with these questions but what is a better resource than confocal users and specialists! I tried searching for similar topics but didn't get much useful information. We will be adding confocal microscope to our facility here at my company. I've three quotes from Olympus, Leica and Carl Zeiss. The models are Olympus FV1000/IX81, Leica TCS SP5 and Carl Zeiss LSM710. Olympus and Leica are almost similar in costs whereas Carl Zaeiss is relatively costly for similar instrumentation. My experiment will range from cellular uptake studies of nanoparticles to some FRET experiments. The nanoparticles will be multi colored and hence spectral unmixing will be important. There will be not many users, perhaps 3/4 at max. My questions are how good are these systems when compared to each other, which one you will recommend consideing the ease of use, reliability and service, any specific advantage of one over another. I really hope you will take some time out and reply to these questions. Thank you in advance. Best, Amol |
|
|
Hi Amol,
If possible, set up a demo for all three systems on site in relatively close time sequence and try all (or at least most) of your expected applications on them. Keep each system long enough on site to have a chance to get all of your users to try them as well. I'm sure this forum's members could go on forever describing pro and cons for all three systems, but there is no substitute for seeing them with your own eyes and trying them with your own samples. I'm also a bit surprised that you couldn't find much useful info during your search; even on this very forum we talk about these things often.
I'll be happy to give you some detailed feedback on the Leica SP5 if necessary; we have been happy (mostly...) users for two years now. We have the AOBS-based spectral system with 5 PMTs and 4 lasers from 405 nm to 633 nm, the usual layout, with both an inverted and an upright DM(I)6000 scopes. Emission-side spectral unmixing and emission spectrum scanning (lambda scan) are very useful to have when you are working with multi-colour samples often. Service is fine, at least here in the UK
Best, Zoltan On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, -- Zoltan Cseresnyes Facility manager, Imaging Suite University of Cambridge, UK
|
|
|
Hi Amol: I am not familiar with the For us, we are unfortunately (or
fortunately) located in a “rural” area. This is what we were told
AFTER we bought the system. It sometimes takes several weeks before the
engineer arrives….. Best, Zhaojie Zhaojie Zhang, Ph.D. Director, Microscopy Core Facility From: Confocal Microscopy
List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Zoltan Cseresnyes Hi Amol, If possible, set up a demo for all three systems on site in relatively
close time sequence and try all (or at least most) of your expected
applications on them. Keep each system long enough on site to have a
chance to get all of your users to try them as well. I'm sure this
forum's members could go on forever describing pro and cons for all three
systems, but there is no substitute for seeing them with your own eyes and
trying them with your own samples. I'm also a bit surprised that you
couldn't find much useful info during your search; even on this
very forum we talk about these things often. I'll be happy to give you some detailed feedback on the
Leica SP5 if
necessary; we have been happy (mostly...) users
for two years now. We have the AOBS-based spectral system with 5 PMTs and
4 lasers from 405 nm to 633 nm, the usual layout, with both an inverted and an
upright DM(I)6000 scopes. Emission-side spectral unmixing and emission
spectrum scanning (lambda scan) are very useful to have when you are working
with multi-colour samples often. Service is fine, at least here in the Best, Zoltan On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All,
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Amolkumar Karwa
SP5
THE ONE SUITS U THE BEST ??? On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
regan m wrote:
> SP5 > > THE ONE SUITS U THE BEST ??? > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Hello All, > > Sorry to bother everyone with these questions but what is a better > resource > than confocal users and specialists! I tried searching for similar > topics but > didn't get much useful information. > > We will be adding confocal microscope to our facility here at my > company. I've > three quotes from Olympus, Leica and Carl Zeiss. The models are > Olympus > FV1000/IX81, Leica TCS SP5 and Carl Zeiss LSM710. Olympus and > Leica are > almost similar in costs whereas Carl Zaeiss is relatively costly > for similar > instrumentation. > > My experiment will range from cellular uptake studies of > nanoparticles to some > FRET experiments. The nanoparticles will be multi colored and > hence spectral > unmixing will be important. There will be not many users, perhaps > 3/4 at max. > > My questions are how good are these systems when compared to each > other, > which one you will recommend consideing the ease of use, > reliability and > service, any specific advantage of one over another. > > I really hope you will take some time out and reply to these > questions. Thank > you in advance. > > Best, > Amol > > easy to use, software is very easy to use, wavelength collection (5 channels and transmitted channel at the same time or sequential ) is very easy. Service because I am in a Metro area ( NIH is just down the road a bit) is very good. The SP5 is also a very hardy piece of equipment. Phone support is great and Leica Microsystems also offers classes in their Exton offices for beginners to advanced users. -- Chere Petty, M.S. Manager of UMBC Keith R. Porter Core Imaging Facility Department of Biological Sciences University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, Maryland 21250 Fax: 410-455-3875 Cell: 301-367-8408 [hidden email] www.emumbc.com |
 
|
Straatman, Kees (Dr.) |
Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by regan m
Dear Amol, We have a SP5 and a FV1000 in our microscope facility. Both are
easy to use. It is really user dependent which system is preferred. Our Leica
system is used most, but that has to do with its location in Biochemistry, were
we have more microscope users. However, the SP5 is also the system with most
down time because of hardware and software failures. The FV1000 is for sure not
worse than the SP5. We have the FV1000 now for 2 years without any problems. In
the past I used an Zeiss510 and was very happy with that system as well. I have
not worked with the 710, only seen some demos but I would imagine that it only
has improved. So best is to get the systems in for some days and do some
testing yourself. Good luck Kees Dr. Ir. K.R. Straatman Times Higher Education University of the Year 2008-9 From: Confocal Microscopy List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of regan m SP5 On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
In reply to this post by Z.J. Zhang
I am using a Olympus Fluoview 300 and have recently added a Prior
Proscan II. We installed the software we obtained from Olympus to control the stage and integrate the x,y positions with the Fluoview software and the Protocol Processor. We had success in running the software twice after innumerable repeated attempts, shutdowns, reboots, turning off and on control boxes for the microscope, etc. about a week ago. Since then the computer repeatedly crashes, the x,y grid does not read the step size that we enter in, and today the motherboard croaked. In the middle of this exciting exercise, we loaded micro-manager, version 1.2, and, as expected, everything ran perfectly without crashing, each and every time we used it. Unfortunately, the micro-manager software does not yet communicate/work in tandem with the Fluoview 300 software, and so the x,y positions have to be manually moved by the operator for each x,y position. I wondered whether anyone has written software for the Fluoview 300 that controls the stage and works with the Fluoview software (I have Tiempo installed), or if anyone else has worked with the Olympus x,y software/Protocol Processor/Prior Proscan II and has had repeatable success. Jerry -- Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick Core Facility Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) University of Minnesota, Department of Neuroscience 1-205 Hasselmo Hall 312 Church St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 612-624-6607 [hidden email] http://www.bipl.umn.edu Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and Output." Rawlight.com (dba "Sedgewick Initiatives") 965 Cromwell Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55114 651-788-2261 [hidden email] http://www.rawlight.com http://www.jerrysedgewick.com --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Straatman, Kees (Dr.)
In all this I've seen no mention of the Nikon A1, which is
a comparable system. I have no connection with the company (other than as
a customer) but I can't see why you wouldn't evaluate this
too.
All these advanced spectral systems do their job in quite
different ways, which means that the ideal system for one user will not be the
best for another. What's more, some, such as the Leica SP5, are
available in quite different configurations which will suit different
tasks. As an example, if you choose the super-continuum white light laser
you will be able to take an excitation spectrum which you can't do otherwise,
but the conventional lasers will be much better for FRET. So you really
need to list your needs and check these against the
features.
From your original post it wasn't really clear why you even
needed one of these high-end machines. There are lower-end systems on the
market (Leica SPE, Zeiss 700, Nikon C1) which might do all you need and save
your company quite a bit of money.
Guy
Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Straatman, Dr K.R. Sent: Saturday, 25 July 2009 1:46 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope Dear
Amol, We
have a SP5 and a FV1000 in our microscope facility. Both are easy to use. It is
really user dependent which system is preferred. Our Leica system is used most,
but that has to do with its location in Biochemistry, were we have more
microscope users. However, the SP5 is also the system with most down time
because of hardware and software failures. The FV1000 is for sure not worse than
the SP5. We have the FV1000 now for 2 years without any problems. In the past I
used an Zeiss510 and was very happy with that system as well. I have not worked
with the 710, only seen some demos but I would imagine that it only has
improved. So best is to get the systems in for some days and do some testing
yourself. Good
luck Kees Dr.
Ir. K.R. Straatman Times
Higher Education University of the Year 2008-9 From: Confocal
Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
regan m SP5 On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
Craig Brideau |
Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope
|
|
Our lab uses the C1Si which is a quite capable spectral system. (no
company affiliation, just a customer) Craig > From your original post it wasn't really clear why you even needed one of > these high-end machines. There are lower-end systems on the market (Leica > SPE, Zeiss 700, Nikon C1) which might do all you need and save your company > quite a bit of money. > > Guy > > > Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology > by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis > http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm > ______________________________________________ > Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon) > Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09, > University of Sydney, NSW 2006 > ______________________________________________ > Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682 > Mobile 0413 281 861 > ______________________________________________ > http://www.guycox.net > > > ________________________________ > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Straatman, Dr K.R. > Sent: Saturday, 25 July 2009 1:46 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope > > Dear Amol, > > > > We have a SP5 and a FV1000 in our microscope facility. Both are easy to use. > It is really user dependent which system is preferred. Our Leica system is > used most, but that has to do with its location in Biochemistry, were we > have more microscope users. However, the SP5 is also the system with most > down time because of hardware and software failures. The FV1000 is for sure > not worse than the SP5. We have the FV1000 now for 2 years without any > problems. In the past I used an Zeiss510 and was very happy with that system > as well. I have not worked with the 710, only seen some demos but I would > imagine that it only has improved. So best is to get the systems in for some > days and do some testing yourself. > > > > Good luck > > > > Kees > > > > > > Dr. Ir. K.R. Straatman > Senior Experimental Officer > School of Biological Sciences > http://www.le.ac.uk/biochem/microscopy/home.html > > Postal address: > Department of Biochemistry > Henry Wellcome Building > University of Leicester > Lancaster Rd. > Leicester LE1 9HN > UK > tel.: + 44 (0)116 229 7085/252 2263 > fax: + 44 (0)116 229 7031 > > > > Times Higher Education University of the Year 2008-9 > > > > > > > > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of regan m > Sent: 24 July 2009 13:34 > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope > > > > SP5 > > THE ONE SUITS U THE BEST ??? > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello All, > > Sorry to bother everyone with these questions but what is a better resource > than confocal users and specialists! I tried searching for similar topics > but > didn't get much useful information. > > We will be adding confocal microscope to our facility here at my company. > I've > three quotes from Olympus, Leica and Carl Zeiss. The models are Olympus > FV1000/IX81, Leica TCS SP5 and Carl Zeiss LSM710. Olympus and Leica are > almost similar in costs whereas Carl Zaeiss is relatively costly for similar > instrumentation. > > My experiment will range from cellular uptake studies of nanoparticles to > some > FRET experiments. The nanoparticles will be multi colored and hence spectral > unmixing will be important. There will be not many users, perhaps 3/4 at > max. > > My questions are how good are these systems when compared to each other, > which one you will recommend consideing the ease of use, reliability and > service, any specific advantage of one over another. > > I really hope you will take some time out and reply to these questions. > Thank > you in advance. > > Best, > Amol > > |
|
|
manish kumar-2 |
Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by Amolkumar Karwa
Hi Amol
I have used Leica TCS SP5 and Zeiss meta 510, out of these two the choice goes for Leica TCS SP5.I think Leica is the best suited for your experiments. Leica is the only comp who uses AOBS and this AOBS makes Leica different from others.
All the best
Manish Kumar
Senior research associate Delhi University, South campus, New Delhi.
India +919717379212 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
The best choice for you will come down to
the different approaches each of the manufacturers takes to spectral imaging. The
Leica and I may not have made your decision any
easier, but I hope it at least helps. Regards, Adam M. Larson, Ph.D. Advanced Imaging Group 435 Route 206 Tel: (973)300-4497 THORLABS
Inc. From: Confocal
Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Manish Kumar Hi Amol I have used Leica TCS SP5 and Zeiss meta 510, out of these two the
choice goes for Leica TCS SP5.I think Leica is the best suited for
your experiments. Leica is the only comp who uses AOBS and this AOBS
makes Leica different from others. All the best Manish Kumar
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
Michael Meade |
Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope
|
|
In reply to this post by Amolkumar Karwa
Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone. From: Adam Larson <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:33 AM To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope The best choice for you will come down to the different approaches each of the manufacturers takes to spectral imaging. The Leica
and I may not have made your decision any easier, but I hope it at least helps. Regards, Adam M. Larson, Ph.D. Advanced Imaging Group 435 Route 206 Tel: (973)300-4497 THORLABS Inc. From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Manish Kumar Hi Amol I have used Leica TCS SP5 and Zeiss meta 510, out of these two the choice goes for Leica TCS SP5.I think Leica is the best suited for your experiments. Leica is the
only comp who uses AOBS and this AOBS makes Leica different from others. All the best Manish Kumar
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello All, |
|
|
Alberto Diaspro |
Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope
|
|
My favourites are Leica SP5 and Nikon A1R.
All the best Alby On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Michael Meade wrote: > > > Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone. > > From: Adam Larson <[hidden email]> > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:33 AM > To: [hidden email] > <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope > > The best choice for you will come down to the different approaches > each of the manufacturers takes to spectral imaging. The Leica and > Olympus benefit from nearly infinite spectral resolution tuning. > However, due to their few number of detectors their spectral imaging > speed is going to be quite slow especially if the spectral spread of > your nanoparticles is wide. This will only get slower as your > spectral resolution increases. Among those two, Leica will have the > most efficient beam path. While I do not believe their claim of > >90% transmission efficiency on the AOBS, the very narrow filter > channels for excitation lasers make it a better choice than > multichannel dichroics. It also uses a prism to refract the light > instead of a diffraction grating. That being said, if speed is an > issue, The LSM710, as far as I know, collects 34 channels > simultaneously. It has a 32 channel PMT array plus two additional > PMT’s next to the main array that have slits in front of them for > varying spectral resolution since the main PMT array has a fixed > channel resolution. An alternative suggestion might be to look at > the new Nikon A1R. As with the LSM710 is has a grating and > 32channel PMT array based spectral detector. Unlike the LSM710, the > A1R spectral detector has a choice of three gratings allowing the > user to adjust spectral resolution and center wavelength. Both > Nikon and Zeiss play clever tricks to improve the diffraction > efficiency of gratings. The Nikon A1R also uses dichroic mirrors > optimized for a low angle of incidence that significantly narrows > the laser reflection bands improving transmission efficiency. They > can not get as narrow as the AOBS from Leica, but are an improvement > over the traditional 45degree dichroics. The Nikon A1R and the > Leica SP5 are both tandem scanner arrangements meaning that there is > a galvo pair and a galvo/resonance pair. Nikon actively corrects > for pixel shifts between the forward and back scans of the resonance > scanner, Leica has a look-up table and a user correction in software. > > I may not have made your decision any easier, but I hope it at least > helps. > > Regards, > > Adam M. Larson, Ph.D. > Advanced Imaging Group > 435 Route 206 > Newton, NJ 07860 > Tel: (973)300-4497 > > THORLABS Inc. > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email] > ] On Behalf Of Manish Kumar > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:46 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Buying a COnfocal Microscope > > Hi Amol > I have used Leica TCS SP5 and Zeiss meta 510, out of these two the > choice goes for Leica TCS SP5.I think Leica is the best suited for > your experiments. Leica is the only comp who uses AOBS and this AOBS > makes Leica different from others. > All the best > Manish Kumar > Senior research associate > Delhi University, South campus, > New Delhi. > India > +919717379212 > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Amol K <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello All, > > Sorry to bother everyone with these questions but what is a better > resource > than confocal users and specialists! I tried searching for similar > topics but > didn't get much useful information. > > We will be adding confocal microscope to our facility here at my > company. I've > three quotes from Olympus, Leica and Carl Zeiss. The models are > Olympus > FV1000/IX81, Leica TCS SP5 and Carl Zeiss LSM710. Olympus and Leica > are > almost similar in costs whereas Carl Zaeiss is relatively costly for > similar > instrumentation. > > My experiment will range from cellular uptake studies of > nanoparticles to some > FRET experiments. The nanoparticles will be multi colored and hence > spectral > unmixing will be important. There will be not many users, perhaps > 3/4 at max. > > My questions are how good are these systems when compared to each > other, > which one you will recommend consideing the ease of use, reliability > and > service, any specific advantage of one over another. > > I really hope you will take some time out and reply to these > questions. Thank > you in advance. > > Best, > Amol > ---------------------------------------------------- "Water slowly flowed under the sky" (Cesare Pavese) ----------------------------------------------------- Alberto Diaspro, LAMBS IFOM IEO -MicroSCoBio, NBT-IIT, IBF-CNR Department of Physics, University of Genoa, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genoa, Italy - fax +39-010314218 - tel +39 0103536426/309; URLs: www.lambs.it; Win in Science! ...link to http://www.ebsa2009.org ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- "Water slowly flowed under the sky" (Cesare Pavese) ----------------------------------------------------- Alberto Diaspro, LAMBS IFOM IEO -MicroSCoBio, NBT-IIT, IBF-CNR Department of Physics, University of Genoa, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genoa, Italy - fax +39-010314218 - tel +39 0103536426/309; URLs: www.lambs.it; Win in Science! ...link to http://www.ebsa2009.org ---------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Amolkumar Karwa
Hi Lily,
458nm is a compromise if you are on the budget, 405nm line is not optimal for CeFP either (unless one works under conditions of "careless" overexpression). Therefore, the broadly available 436-440 diode will do a better job. However, sensitized FRET is another often acceptable option (436nm diode - 514.5nm argon). The most accurate one would be FLIM FRET, and I am confident NIH biophysicists are well aware of FLIM, and it should not be a problem in Bethesda, even at the NIAID. Good luck, Vitaly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Zoltan Cseresnyes [[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:25 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: YFP conversion to CFP Hi Lily, We are also aware of the potential artifact that comes from bleaching ypf and then exciting cfp with 405. We do get a very strong (artificial) signal in the donor channel when using 405 nm even in a control prep where there is no donor at all! It seems to be a conversion of the yfp molecules to a form that can be easily excited by 405, and also (but not nearly as much) by 458 nm. Our recipe now is to excite cfp with 458. I hope this helps, Zoltan On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Koo, Lily (NIH/NIAID) [E] <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear List, We wonder what is everyones experience with the photoconversion of YFP into a CFP-like emission spectra during acceptor photobleaching FRET? There was a correspondence article in Nature Methods in 2005 citing this phenomenon, a year later it was refuted, and was confirmed again in 2007. I havent come across too many FRET paper discussing it and wonder if it is really an established observation? Thanks, http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v2/n11/full/nmeth1105-801.html Lily -- Zoltan Cseresnyes Facility manager, Imaging Suite ------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Koo, Lily (NIH/NIAID) [E] |
Re: YFP conversion to CFP
|
|
Thanks for the responses. We are comparing the results (and associated pros and cons, which are more or less experiment-specific) of SE, AP, and FLIM. However, we came across comments on this "conversion" phenomenon and wondered what is the List's broad experience with it since it is not often mentioned in FRET papers/literature. In any case, we will add it in as an additional control in the future.
Lily -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:54 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: YFP conversion to CFP Hi Lily, 458nm is a compromise if you are on the budget, 405nm line is not optimal for CeFP either (unless one works under conditions of "careless" overexpression). Therefore, the broadly available 436-440 diode will do a better job. However, sensitized FRET is another often acceptable option (436nm diode - 514.5nm argon). The most accurate one would be FLIM FRET, and I am confident NIH biophysicists are well aware of FLIM, and it should not be a problem in Bethesda, even at the NIAID. Good luck, Vitaly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Zoltan Cseresnyes [[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:25 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: YFP conversion to CFP Hi Lily, We are also aware of the potential artifact that comes from bleaching ypf and then exciting cfp with 405. We do get a very strong (artificial) signal in the donor channel when using 405 nm even in a control prep where there is no donor at all! It seems to be a conversion of the yfp molecules to a form that can be easily excited by 405, and also (but not nearly as much) by 458 nm. Our recipe now is to excite cfp with 458. I hope this helps, Zoltan On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Koo, Lily (NIH/NIAID) [E] <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear List, We wonder what is everyone's experience with the photoconversion of YFP into a CFP-like emission spectra during acceptor photobleaching FRET? There was a correspondence article in Nature Methods in 2005 citing this phenomenon, a year later it was refuted, and was confirmed again in 2007. I haven't come across too many FRET paper discussing it and wonder if it is really an established observation? Thanks, http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v2/n11/full/nmeth1105-801.html Lily -- Zoltan Cseresnyes Facility manager, Imaging Suite ------------------------------------------------- |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |