Service contracts
Locked
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hello listserv, I'm interested in your opinions regarding service contracts on high-end commercial microscopes in multi-user core facilities. What has your experience been with service contracts? Any mistakes or regrets? Any advice on negotiating pricing, or if/when to drop contracts? I've read through some old posts on this topic, but I bet there's more useful knowledge lurking out there, and I bet I get some juicy off-list replies like usual. Thanks, as always. -Andy |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Andy, Yes to service contracts from the manufacturer. No to 3rd party ("Fisher contracts"), especially if 'negotiated' by purchasing agents/depts who go have a Friday happy hour beer(s) with the "Fisher rep(s)". While I was in Miami, very good service from Leica (SP5 and MP/SP5/FLIM/FCS), pretty good service from Zeiss (old LSM510 at the time I became manager). Regrets - that I had not been hired several months earlier to change the MP/SP5/FLIM/FCS to either: a) MP/SP5 and a TIRF microscope (the U would have benefited more from conventional TIRF than early day nanoscope) or -- probably better use of the money b) MP/SP5 and a much longer service contract up front. For "b", let's say the two F-techniques were $250,000 and the Leica service contract on SP5 + MP/SP5/FLIM/FCS was $90,000 (note: very approximate numbers ... also, the purchase did include 1 year warranty and 3 years service contract). So, changing to SP5 + MP/SP5 is $250K less in hardware to have on contract each year, so the annual "list price" service contract would have been a lot lower. Let's say list $65,000. But we could have used that $250,000 on more years of the now less expensive service contract. 250 / 65 --> ~4 extra years at 'list price' service contract. I would have asked for an 2 more years (so: 1 year warranty, 3 years as bought, 4 years extra, plus my 2 more = 10 years), and hopefully my boss(es) would have overruled my suggestion and negotiated for three or even four extra years (=11 or 12 years). When to drop contracts - before obsolescence, shifting users to newer, better -- see link in p.s. -- instruments (an iSIM for example, if there is a way to get the commercial product serviced efficiently and at reasonable cost in the US). Not a regret (I had zero influence on the non-process), so observations - if the U had its act together, it could have found a way to: 1. bundle all the Leica service contracts (3 SP5's and the MP/SP5, I'll ignore the f-techniques) onto one negotiation. The various depts/institutes could still have ended up forking over the money for their hardware. 2. the medical school Dean (in conjunctions with other Dean's, followed through by appropriate milliDeans, microDean's and nanoDean's) could have induced some discipline in various schools/depts/institutes spending on hardware so instead of 18 (might have peaked around 20 ... one being an $800,000 Opera [bonus: $80,000 per year service contract] that to the best of my knowledge was never used in a real screen - if anyone at the U did so, I hope they send me the pdf or at least a pubmed link) confocal microscopes, there could have been a lot fewer confocals (maybe 4 at the med school, 1 at Coral Gables, and a nice research microscope at the Marine school), with trained technical staff at each, whose primary jobs would be (i) operator for users who needed an operator, (ii) oversight for 'power users' after such had been trained up (and with more training ongoing), and (iii) operate/train/oversight for other instruments in/near each confocal (ex. research stereo microscopes, now tools like light sheet scopes). I strongly believe that 5 well, heavily used, confocals would have been resulted in more more and better discoveries. // My biggest contribution to microscopy at the U was when I urged one of the MP/SP5 users who did 'islets in the eye' confocal imaging (and did so with modest number of channels and pixel count, whatever size Z-series), to try using the Leica SP5 resonant scanner instead of the default 'standard' (aka slow) scanner. That user waved me off. Several days later I asked the faculty member in charge of that project about RS. The faculty member replied that the acquisitions were now so fast that the user did not have the opportunity to take breaks during the Z-series. They now have 10 papers together. The faculty member was - an is - an assistant professor at the U. The user is now an assistant professor at the U. George p.s. "newer, better" reminded me of this article, D. Ward 2012Faster, Better, Cheaper: Why Not Pick All Three? National Defense Magazine. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/April/Pages/Faster,Better,CheaperWhyNotPickAllThree.aspx On 3/16/2016 1:11 PM, Andrew York wrote: > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Hello listserv, I'm interested in your opinions regarding service > contracts on high-end commercial microscopes in multi-user core facilities. > What has your experience been with service contracts? Any mistakes or > regrets? Any advice on negotiating pricing, or if/when to drop contracts? > > I've read through some old posts on this topic, but I bet there's more > useful knowledge lurking out there, and I bet I get some juicy off-list > replies like usual. > > Thanks, as always. > -Andy > -- George McNamara, Ph.D. Single Cells Analyst, T-Cell Therapy Lab (Cooper Lab) University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX 77054 Tattletales http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/42 http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/75 https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew York
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Andy We always negotiate a 5-year full service contract at the time of purchase. We try and get contracts directly with the manufacturer if possible or otherwise go and talk directly to people who deal with the rep company to ask how their service is. Be very aware of you hear any sign of bad service. During the 5 years you can pay special attention to what breaks, how often a service is needed, get the engineer to show you some simple (or not) maintenance, ask for price for each service /repair needed. This helps you figure out if you need to renew it not. Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards Sylvie @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sylvie Le Guyader, PhD Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager Karolinska Institutet- Bionut Dpt Hälsovägen 7, Novum, G lift, floor 6 14157 Huddinge Sweden mobile: +46 (0) 73 733 5008 office: +46 (0) 8 5248 1107 LCI website ---- Andrew York wrote ---- ***** To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hello listserv, I'm interested in your opinions regarding service contracts on high-end commercial microscopes in multi-user core facilities. What has your experience been with service contracts? Any mistakes or regrets? Any advice on negotiating pricing, or if/when to drop contracts? I've read through some old posts on this topic, but I bet there's more useful knowledge lurking out there, and I bet I get some juicy off-list replies like usual. Thanks, as always. -Andy |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew York
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Hi Avi, -- and I am copying this to the listserv, Back when I was in Miami, one of the Leica confocal applications scientists (I forget his name - sorry!) showed me side by side comparison of resonant scanner (RS) vs standard mode for as identical acquisition settings as possible, on a couple of specimens. The bottom line was that for the same total dwell time, RS gave as good (or better) data, with less photobleaching of those particular specimens. My recollection is that very slow dwell times in standard mode led to a lot more photobleaching. I encourage you / your lab / your users (maybe all late first year grad students should do this and other exercises on shared instrumentation!) to compare: standard scanner: * 80 Hz (if slowest dwell time) * 800 Hz (I forget whether this is Leica SP5 default speed) * max standard scanner speed (for say 512x512 pixel image) RS = 8000 Hz * no averaging * 10 frame averaging (effectively 800 Hz) * 100 frame averaging (effectively 80 Hz Personally, I hate averaging on a confocal ... long ago I complained on the Confocal Listserv that the confocal manufacturers should come up with "more sophisticated" algorithms for denoising confocal PMT data ... as the simplest improvement, I suggested odd number of acquisitions, and taking the median for each pixel (this way would be a real pixel value, not average of two intensity reads). For example, PMT at high gain might output, 101, 1, 1, 1, 1, average = 21, median = 1. Note: RS mode is even more fun with very few rows, single line, so 8000 linescans per second on Leica SP5. One of my favorite papers (except for their acronym [it would work on non-FRET data] and slow speed in 2008) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hoppe+swanson+2008 PDF available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2426648/ 61 lines of Matlab code (though needs a commercial library): The computer simulations and algorithm development were carried out in using MATLAB 7.3 (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) and the DIPImage toolbox for MATLAB (http://www.diplib.org/, Quantitative Imaging Group, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands) in the Linux operating system (OpenSUSE 10.0, Novell, Waltham, MA). The computer was a custom-built dual-Athlon (AMD) machine with 5 GB RAM. The MATLAB function for 3DFSR can be found athttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/4dimagingcenter/3dfsr. (oops, that UMich web site ended - email the authors for the .M code). -- what I refer to as "joint spatial deconvolution and spectral unmixing" (JSDSU or JSDSUN) ... results in a 10x improvement in signal to noise ratio. Spatial deconvolution is now "instant gratification" with GPU(s): www.microvolution.com (yes, that's my image on their home page - no financial interest) and presumably (I've not tested it) SVI Huygens w/ GPU ... https://svi.nl/HuygensGPU NVidia top of the line GPU graphics card, GeForce GTC Titan-X, is around $1000 (and drives an HD 4K monitor). By end of 2016 their next gen card will be same $1000, but about 10x faster (more cores, somewhat higher clock rate) and more RAM ... and some PC's could take 2 or 3 of these. I hope both Microvolution and Huygens implemenet joint processing. I would also like to see the microscope vendors implement many-cameras to use the full spectral range of fluorescence, full field of view, without moving parts. Also as compact as possible, and simple C-mount to the microscope. A good number of cameras would be eight sCMOS 82% QE cameras (i.e. USB3). The usable fluorescence emission range is about 370-850 nm, so 480 nm range divided by 8 cameras is about 60 nm per emission band. Probably narrower in the cyan-green-yellow bands, and much wider in the NIR. One could today purchase two Cairn Research MultiCam LS's https://www.cairn-research.co.uk/product/multicam-ls/ replace one of the eyepiece/camera mirrors with an appropriate dichroic, and go 8plex. S.J. Morris published in the early 1990's on 4 ICCDs for simultaneous Ca++ and pH ratiometric imaging (Nikon splitter on the Diaphot, followed by splitters on each of those ports). Jeff Price (Sanford-Burnham) and Sally Ward & Raimund Ober (long time UTSW, now at Texas A&M) have published on multi-focal setups. If academics can do it, how about vendors stepping up? George p.s. one TITAN X price is $1251, http://www.amazon.com/GeForce-Graphics-384-Bit-Express-GTXTITANX-12GD5/dp/B00V7C9N26 GeForce GTX TITAN X Graphics Card, 12GB GDDR5 384-Bit, PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card (GTXTITANX-12GD5) Academic pricing might be better. p.p.s. Using a coverglass with a sparse distribution of ThermoFisher/.../Molecular Probes TetraSpeck beads (40 or 100 nm diameter), and/or MM2 nanoparticles (the latter also provides O2 data, first emission band is similar to BV421, O2 sensitive band is narrow at 650 nm ... ok, so maybe 12 cameras, also Tb and Eu lanthanides emissions, and might as well have a full time dedicated transmitted light band, such as way out in NIR, re: Dodt's IR-VEC-DIC, though I would just go brightfield + deconvolution and/or QPm), http://luxcel.com/MitoImage%C2%AE+MM2+Description http://ibidi.com/fileadmin/products/cells_reagents/R_741XX_NanO2_MM2/IN_74161_MM2.pdf If the NIRvana Sciences chlroins/chlorphyll based dyes work well (their academic cofounders, Jonathan Lindsey et al, are now at QY 0.3 for some), these narrow emission peaks, http://nirvanasciences.com/?page_id=3088 especially if could be tandem'd on the Brilliant's (BUV, BV, BB ... maybe some day BG?) could enable imaging with as many plex (or more) than the flow folks. On 3/17/2016 1:02 AM, Avi Jacob wrote: > Hi George! > > So, about the RS. I don't use mine that often, but it seems you > recommend using it when doing large Zs? > It does give a grainier image, even with averaging. And if one used a > LOT of averaging, you lost the speed. > I use it mostly when doing Live. > > Avi > > > -- > Avi Jacob, Ph.D. > Head of Light Microscopy > The Mina & Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences > Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel > Cell: 052-5802544 (call here first), Desk: 972-3-5317647 > http://tinyurl.com/BIU-Microscopy > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:21 AM, George McNamara wrote: > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your > posting. > ***** > > Hi Andy, > > // > > My biggest contribution to microscopy at the U was when I urged > one of the MP/SP5 users who did 'islets in the eye' confocal > imaging (and did so with modest number of channels and pixel > count, whatever size Z-series), to try using the Leica SP5 > resonant scanner instead of the default 'standard' (aka slow) > scanner. That user waved me off. Several days later I asked the > faculty member in charge of that project about RS. The faculty > member replied that the acquisitions were now so fast that the > user did not have the opportunity to take breaks during the > Z-series. They now have 10 papers together. The faculty member > was - an is - an assistant professor at the U. The user is now an > assistant professor at the U. > > George > p.s. "newer, better" reminded me of this article, > D. Ward 2012Faster, Better, Cheaper: Why Not Pick All Three? > National Defense Magazine. > http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/April/Pages/Faster,Better,CheaperWhyNotPickAllThree.aspx > > On 3/16/2016 1:11 PM, Andrew York wrote: > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in > your posting. > ***** > > Hello listserv, I'm interested in your opinions regarding > service > contracts on high-end commercial microscopes in multi-user > core facilities. > What has your experience been with service contracts? Any > mistakes or > regrets? Any advice on negotiating pricing, or if/when to drop > contracts? > > I've read through some old posts on this topic, but I bet > there's more > useful knowledge lurking out there, and I bet I get some juicy > off-list > replies like usual. > > Thanks, as always. > -Andy > > > > -- > > > > George McNamara, Ph.D. > Single Cells Analyst, T-Cell Therapy Lab (Cooper Lab) > University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center > Houston, TX 77054 > Tattletales http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/42 > http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/75 > https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara > > |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** OMX is old tech (for example, the deconvolution is from around 1995). OMX used multiple PC's (one per camera if I recall correctly). Multiple cameras ... Can optimize exposure times and illumination intensity to get the most and best data. GPU enables instant gratification spatial deconvolution (and hopefully "joint" processing). Fluorescence imaging was at 7plex (albeit inefficiently) in 2000, http://jhc.sagepub.com/content/48/5/653.long has not progressed nearly as much as flow cytometry. On 3/19/2016 4:03 PM, Andreas Bruckbauer wrote: > A good number of cameras would be eight sCMOS 82% QE cameras (i.e. USB3). > > I guess this would be too much data to transfer. The OMX had four > computers for four cameras, not sure if this is still necessary, but > eight fast cameras with lots of pixels sounds to me difficult to > handle. Maybe two quad-splitter with a camera splitter combined? > Best wishes > > Andreas > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: George McNamara <mailto:[hidden email]> > Sent: 19/03/2016 20:15 > To: [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Service contracts > > ***** > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. > ***** > > Hi Avi, -- and I am copying this to the listserv, > > Back when I was in Miami, one of the Leica confocal applications > scientists (I forget his name - sorry!) showed me side by side > comparison of resonant scanner (RS) vs standard mode for as identical > acquisition settings as possible, on a couple of specimens. The bottom > line was that for the same total dwell time, RS gave as good (or better) > data, with less photobleaching of those particular specimens. My > recollection is that very slow dwell times in standard mode led to a lot > more photobleaching. > I encourage you / your lab / your users (maybe all late first year grad > students should do this and other exercises on shared instrumentation!) > to compare: > standard scanner: > * 80 Hz (if slowest dwell time) > * 800 Hz (I forget whether this is Leica SP5 default speed) > * max standard scanner speed (for say 512x512 pixel image) > RS = 8000 Hz > * no averaging > * 10 frame averaging (effectively 800 Hz) > * 100 frame averaging (effectively 80 Hz > Personally, I hate averaging on a confocal ... long ago I complained on > the Confocal Listserv that the confocal manufacturers should come up > with "more sophisticated" algorithms for denoising confocal PMT data ... > as the simplest improvement, I suggested odd number of acquisitions, and > taking the median for each pixel (this way would be a real pixel value, > not average of two intensity reads). For example, PMT at high gain might > output, 101, 1, 1, 1, 1, average = 21, median = 1. > Note: RS mode is even more fun with very few rows, single line, so 8000 > linescans per second on Leica SP5. > > One of my favorite papers (except for their acronym [it would work on > non-FRET data] and slow speed in 2008) > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hoppe+swanson+2008 > PDF available at > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2426648/ > 61 lines of Matlab code (though needs a commercial library): > The computer simulations and algorithm development were carried out in > using MATLAB 7.3 (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) and the DIPImage toolbox > for MATLAB (http://www.diplib.org/, Quantitative Imaging Group, Delft > University of Technology, Netherlands) in the Linux operating system > (OpenSUSE 10.0, Novell, Waltham, MA). The computer was a custom-built > dual-Athlon (AMD) machine with 5 GB RAM. The MATLAB function for 3DFSR > can be found athttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/4dimagingcenter/3dfsr. > (oops, that UMich web site ended - email the authors for the .M code). > > -- what I refer to as "joint spatial deconvolution and spectral > unmixing" (JSDSU or JSDSUN) ... results in a 10x improvement in signal > to noise ratio. Spatial deconvolution is now "instant gratification" > with GPU(s): > www.microvolution.com (yes, that's my image on their home page - no > financial interest) and presumably (I've not tested it) > SVI Huygens w/ GPU ... https://svi.nl/HuygensGPU > > NVidia top of the line GPU graphics card, GeForce GTC Titan-X, is around > $1000 (and drives an HD 4K monitor). By end of 2016 their next gen card > will be same $1000, but about 10x faster (more cores, somewhat higher > clock rate) and more RAM ... and some PC's could take 2 or 3 of these. > > I hope both Microvolution and Huygens implemenet joint processing. > > I would also like to see the microscope vendors implement many-cameras > to use the full spectral range of fluorescence, full field of view, > without moving parts. Also as compact as possible, and simple C-mount to > the microscope. > > A good number of cameras would be eight sCMOS 82% QE cameras (i.e. > USB3). The usable fluorescence emission range is about 370-850 nm, so > 480 nm range divided by 8 cameras is about 60 nm per emission band. > Probably narrower in the cyan-green-yellow bands, and much wider in > the NIR. > > One could today purchase two Cairn Research MultiCam LS's > https://www.cairn-research.co.uk/product/multicam-ls/ > replace one of the eyepiece/camera mirrors with an appropriate dichroic, > and go 8plex. > > S.J. Morris published in the early 1990's on 4 ICCDs for simultaneous > Ca++ and pH ratiometric imaging (Nikon splitter on the Diaphot, followed > by splitters on each of those ports). > > Jeff Price (Sanford-Burnham) and Sally Ward & Raimund Ober (long time > UTSW, now at Texas A&M) have published on multi-focal setups. If > academics can do it, how about vendors stepping up? > > > George > p.s. one TITAN X price is $1251, > http://www.amazon.com/GeForce-Graphics-384-Bit-Express-GTXTITANX-12GD5/dp/B00V7C9N26 > GeForce GTX TITAN X Graphics Card, 12GB GDDR5 384-Bit, PCI Express 3.0 > HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card (GTXTITANX-12GD5) > Academic pricing might be better. > > p.p.s. Using a coverglass with a sparse distribution of > ThermoFisher/.../Molecular Probes TetraSpeck beads (40 or 100 nm > diameter), and/or MM2 nanoparticles (the latter also provides O2 data, > first emission band is similar to BV421, O2 sensitive band is narrow at > 650 nm ... ok, so maybe 12 cameras, also Tb and Eu lanthanides > emissions, and might as well have a full time dedicated transmitted > light band, such as way out in NIR, re: Dodt's IR-VEC-DIC, though I > would just go brightfield + deconvolution and/or QPm), > http://luxcel.com/MitoImage%C2%AE+MM2+Description > http://ibidi.com/fileadmin/products/cells_reagents/R_741XX_NanO2_MM2/IN_74161_MM2.pdf > If the NIRvana Sciences chlroins/chlorphyll based dyes work well (their > academic cofounders, Jonathan Lindsey et al, are now at QY 0.3 for > some), these narrow emission peaks, > http://nirvanasciences.com/?page_id=3088 > especially if could be tandem'd on the Brilliant's (BUV, BV, BB ... > maybe some day BG?) could enable imaging with as many plex (or more) > than the flow folks. > > > On 3/17/2016 1:02 AM, Avi Jacob wrote: > > Hi George! > > > > So, about the RS. I don't use mine that often, but it seems you > > recommend using it when doing large Zs? > > It does give a grainier image, even with averaging. And if one used a > > LOT of averaging, you lost the speed. > > I use it mostly when doing Live. > > > > Avi > > > > > > -- > > Avi Jacob, Ph.D. > > Head of Light Microscopy > > The Mina & Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences > > Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel > > Cell: 052-5802544 (call here first), Desk: 972-3-5317647 > > http://tinyurl.com/BIU-Microscopy > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:21 AM, George McNamara wrote: > > > > ***** > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your > > posting. > > ***** > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > // > > > > My biggest contribution to microscopy at the U was when I urged > > one of the MP/SP5 users who did 'islets in the eye' confocal > > imaging (and did so with modest number of channels and pixel > > count, whatever size Z-series), to try using the Leica SP5 > > resonant scanner instead of the default 'standard' (aka slow) > > scanner. That user waved me off. Several days later I asked the > > faculty member in charge of that project about RS. The faculty > > member replied that the acquisitions were now so fast that the > > user did not have the opportunity to take breaks during the > > Z-series. They now have 10 papers together. The faculty member > > was - an is - an assistant professor at the U. The user is now an > > assistant professor at the U. > > > > George > > p.s. "newer, better" reminded me of this article, > > D. Ward 2012Faster, Better, Cheaper: Why Not Pick All Three? > > National Defense Magazine. > > > http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/April/Pages/Faster,Better,CheaperWhyNotPickAllThree.aspx > > > > On 3/16/2016 1:11 PM, Andrew York wrote: > > > > ***** > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, > go to: > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in > > your posting. > > ***** > > > > Hello listserv, I'm interested in your opinions regarding > > service > > contracts on high-end commercial microscopes in multi-user > > core facilities. > > What has your experience been with service contracts? Any > > mistakes or > > regrets? Any advice on negotiating pricing, or if/when to drop > > contracts? > > > > I've read through some old posts on this topic, but I bet > > there's more > > useful knowledge lurking out there, and I bet I get some juicy > > off-list > > replies like usual. > > > > Thanks, as always. > > -Andy > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > George McNamara, Ph.D. > > Single Cells Analyst, T-Cell Therapy Lab (Cooper Lab) > > University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center > > Houston, TX 77054 > > Tattletales http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/42 > > http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/75 > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara > > > > -- George McNamara, Ph.D. Single Cells Analyst, T-Cell Therapy Lab (Cooper Lab) University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX 77054 Tattletales http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/42 http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/75 https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara |
 
|
Cesare -ALEMBIC- |
Meeting "BioNanoVision of cellular architecture: from the nucleus to the cell membrane"
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting. ***** Dear Colleagues, It is our pleasure to announce the International symposium on BioNanoVision of cellular architecture: from the nucleus to the cell membrane to be held in Barcelona, Spain, during 25-27 May 2016. The International symposium in BioNanoVision will bring together a multidisciplinary group of world-leading scientists to further our understanding on the fundamental molecular mechanisms that regulate cellular architecture, from nuclear organization to the cell membrane. These will include experts from the optical nanoscopy field, biophysicists, cell biologists, chemists and statistical physicists. Since super-resolution and single molecule optical techniques have been crucial to advancing our understanding of cellular structure and protein behavior, we will place a special emphasis on the technologies that are enabling the visualization of molecular components at function with unprecedented spatiotemporal resolution List of confirmed speakers: Joerg Bewersdorf, Christian Eggeling, Philip Tinnefeld, Aleksandra Radenovic, Diego Krapf, Diane Lidke, Gregory Giannone, Lukas Kapitein, Pia Cosma, Xavier Darzaq, Bo Huang and Marcelo Nollmann DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACT SUBMISSION & EARLY REGISTRATION: 31 MARCH 2016 Participants are encouraged to submit abstracts aligned with one of the following topics: *** NEW TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN SUPER-RESOLUTION & SINGLE MOLECULE IMAGING *** CELL MEMBRANE ARCHITECTURE AND MEMBRANE TRAFFICKING *** NUCLEAR ARCHITECTURE For more information and registration: www.icrea-bionanovision2016.com Organizers: Maria Garcia-Parajo, Melike Lakadamyali, Pia Cosma Rispetta l’ambiente: non stampare questa mail se non è necessario. Respect the environment: if it's not necessary, don't print this mail. |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |