What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
Locked
 
|
Cory Quammen |
What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
Dear list,
Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the Open Microscopy Environment, and Micro-Manager are examples of popular, actively-developed, and well-supported applications used within the microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools useful in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the past, but are no longer developed or supported because the original development team lacks funding or interest. My question for the list is: What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image analysis/processing software have you used in the past and would love to use again if it were under active development, but currently do not use because it either does not run or does not do something you want it to? By active development, I mean that a team of developers would release updated versions of the software from time to time with new features and bug fixes. Thanks for your feedback, Cory -- Cory Quammen Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and Manipulation (CISMM) Department of Computer Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen |
|
|
Stephen Cody-2 |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
Dear Cory,
Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this category. It was developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. It will run uder XP but only supports short file names. You can download a copy at: http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html
Cheers
Stephen Cody
2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> Dear list, |
|
|
Tina Carvalho |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
Hey, that was what I was going to say! Confocal Assistant. Really liked
it. Hated the short file names. Aloha, Tina > Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this category. It was > developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. It will run uder > XP but only supports short file names. You can download a copy at: > http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html > > Cheers > Stephen Cody > > 2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> > > > Dear list, > > > > Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the Open > > Microscopy Environment, and Micro-Manager are examples of popular, > > actively-developed, and well-supported applications used within the > > microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools useful > > in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the past, but > > are no longer developed or supported because the original development > > team lacks funding or interest. My question for the list is: > > > > What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image analysis/processing > > software have you used in the past and would love to use again if it > > were under active development, but currently do not use because it > > either does not run or does not do something you want it to? By active > > development, I mean that a team of developers would release updated > > versions of the software from time to time with new features and bug > > fixes. > > > > Thanks for your feedback, > > Cory > > > > -- > > Cory Quammen > > Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and Manipulation > > (CISMM) > > Department of Computer Science > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen > > > **************************************************************************** * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 * * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* **************************************************************************** |
|
|
Stephen Cody-2 |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Cody-2
Dear Cory,
Sorry, Confocal assistant is not open source, but is freely available. I misread your original message.
Steve
2009/4/23 Stephen Cody <[hidden email]>
-- Stephen H. Cody |
|
|
Dale Callaham |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
In reply to this post by Tina Carvalho
Confocal Assistant was very nice for Biorad files in particular and the
things we tended to do with those images and stacks. But in addition to the 8+3 filename limitation it seemed to also have a restricted space allocated for the full path and filename string and if files were more than a few directories deep with typical names it seemed to fail to open the files - would show them in the browser but couldn't open; if the files were simply moved closer to the root level, it opened them fine. Dale Tina Carvalho wrote: > Hey, that was what I was going to say! Confocal Assistant. Really liked > it. Hated the short file names. > > Aloha, > Tina > >> Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this category. It was >> developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. It will run uder >> XP but only supports short file names. You can download a copy at: >> http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html >> >> Cheers >> Stephen Cody >> >> 2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> >> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the Open >>> Microscopy Environment, and Micro-Manager are examples of popular, >>> actively-developed, and well-supported applications used within the >>> microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools useful >>> in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the past, but >>> are no longer developed or supported because the original development >>> team lacks funding or interest. My question for the list is: >>> >>> What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image analysis/processing >>> software have you used in the past and would love to use again if it >>> were under active development, but currently do not use because it >>> either does not run or does not do something you want it to? By active >>> development, I mean that a team of developers would release updated >>> versions of the software from time to time with new features and bug >>> fixes. >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback, >>> Cory >>> >>> -- >>> Cory Quammen >>> Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and Manipulation >>> (CISMM) >>> Department of Computer Science >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >>> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen >>> > > **************************************************************************** > * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * > * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 * > * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* > **************************************************************************** |
|
|
Todd Brelje, not Berlji!
According to the grapevine, he was working on a later version which would work under NT and have an interface more like the later Biorad software. (For those who don't know, Todd also wrote the first version of COMOS, then called CM). However Bio-Rad refused to allow him to continue with it, for unfathomable reasons of their own. Since he had been given access to Bio-Rad source code and had signed the appropriate agreements, he had no option but to comply. Maybe someone else out there knows more details. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dale Callaham Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 1:20 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again? Confocal Assistant was very nice for Biorad files in particular and the things we tended to do with those images and stacks. But in addition to the 8+3 filename limitation it seemed to also have a restricted space allocated for the full path and filename string and if files were more than a few directories deep with typical names it seemed to fail to open the files - would show them in the browser but couldn't open; if the files were simply moved closer to the root level, it opened them fine. Dale Tina Carvalho wrote: > Hey, that was what I was going to say! Confocal Assistant. Really > liked it. Hated the short file names. > > Aloha, > Tina > >> Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this category. It >> was developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. It >> will run uder XP but only supports short file names. You can download a copy at: >> http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html >> >> Cheers >> Stephen Cody >> >> 2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> >> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the Open >>> Microscopy Environment, and Micro-Manager are examples of popular, >>> actively-developed, and well-supported applications used within the >>> microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools useful >>> in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the past, but >>> are no longer developed or supported because the original >>> development team lacks funding or interest. My question for the list is: >>> >>> What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image analysis/processing >>> software have you used in the past and would love to use again if it >>> were under active development, but currently do not use because it >>> either does not run or does not do something you want it to? By >>> active development, I mean that a team of developers would release >>> updated versions of the software from time to time with new features >>> and bug fixes. >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback, >>> Cory >>> >>> -- >>> Cory Quammen >>> Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and >>> Manipulation >>> (CISMM) >>> Department of Computer Science >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >>> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen >>> > > **************************************************************************** > * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * > * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 * > * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* > ********************************************************************** > ****** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: 22/04/2009 5:25 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: 22/04/2009 5:25 PM |
|
|
Eric Scarfone |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
hej Eric > refused to allow him to continue with it, for unfathomable reasons > of their own. Since he had been given access to Bio-Rad source > code and had signed the appropriate agreements, he had no option > but to comply. > > Maybe someone else out there knows more details. > > 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 > ______________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dale Callaham > Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 1:20 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and > would like to use again? > > Confocal Assistant was very nice for Biorad files in particular > and the things we tended to do with those images and stacks. But > in addition to the 8+3 filename limitation it seemed to also have > a restricted space allocated for the full path and filename string > and if files were more than a few directories deep with typical > names it seemed to fail to open the files - would show them in the > browser but couldn't open; if the files were simply moved closer > to the root level, it opened them fine. > > Dale > Tina Carvalho wrote: > > Hey, that was what I was going to say! Confocal Assistant. > Really > > liked it. Hated the short file names. > > > > Aloha, > > Tina > > > >> Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this > category. It > >> was developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. > It > >> will run uder XP but only supports short file names. You can > download a copy at: > >> http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html > >> > >> Cheers > >> Stephen Cody > >> > >> 2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> > >> > >>> Dear list, > >>> > >>> Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the > Open > popular, > >>> actively-developed, and well-supported applications used > within the > >>> microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools > useful > >>> in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the > past, but > >>> are no longer developed or supported because the original > >>> development team lacks funding or interest. My question for > the list is: > >>> > >>> What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image > analysis/processing > >>> software have you used in the past and would love to use again > if it > >>> were under active development, but currently do not use > because it > >>> either does not run or does not do something you want it to? > >>> active development, I mean that a team of developers would > release > >>> updated versions of the software from time to time with new > features > >>> and bug fixes. > >>> > >>> Thanks for your feedback, > >>> Cory > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cory Quammen > >>> Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and > >>> Manipulation > >>> (CISMM) > >>> Department of Computer Science > >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > >>> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen > >>> > > > > > ****************************************************************************> * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * > * > > * University of Hawaii at Manoa * > http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* > > > **********************************************************************> ****** > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: > 22/04/2009 5:25 PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: > 22/04/2009 5:25 PM > > |
|
|
Dale Callaham |
Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would like to use again?
|
|
Hi Eric,
I have written some macros that split the Biorad dual-channel split-image files; also one that does split-image Z-stacks. These are basically modifications to the "Biorad Reader" plugin with some code added to do the task at hand. I would be happy to send or put the java and class files on my website for download. Below is an example for a single frame dual image. The others are longer. /* Author: Dale A. Callaham * email: [hidden email] * * Splits an OPEN (!) 2-channel Biorad Mrc-600 confocal image into the "Red" * and "Green" channels. Assumes 768x512 dual-channel (side-by-side) image. * */ import ij.*; import ij.process.*; import ij.gui.*; import java.awt.*; import ij.plugin.*; public class BioRad_Splitter implements PlugIn { public void run(String arg) { IJ.run("Rename...", "title=Untitled"); IJ.selectWindow("Untitled"); IJ.makeRectangle(0, 0, 383, 511); IJ.run("Copy"); IJ.run("New...", "name=Green type='8-bit Unsigned' fill=Black width=384 height=512 slices=1"); IJ.run("Paste"); IJ.run("Select None"); IJ.selectWindow("Untitled"); IJ.makeRectangle(384, 0, 767, 511); IJ.run("Copy"); IJ.run("New...", "name=Red type='8-bit Unsigned' fill=Black width=384 height=512 slices=1"); IJ.run("Paste"); IJ.run("Select None"); IJ.selectWindow("Untitled"); IJ.run("Select None"); } } ########################################## Eric Scarfone wrote: > hej > For a totally free software , CAS worked surprisingly well! > It was particularly usefull to split and merge the infamous original > Biorad split image format! To my knowledge it is the only software able > to do that, even on stacks that can then be saved as tiff series. > Brings back good mems! > > Eric > > Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, > Center for Hearing and communication Research > Department of Clinical Neuroscience > Karolinska Institutet > > Postal Address: > CFH, M1:02 > Karolinska Hospital, > SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden > > Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, > Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 > Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 > > email: [hidden email] > http://www.ki.se/cfh/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Guy Cox <[hidden email]> > Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:52 am > Subject: Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and would > like to use again? > To: [hidden email] > > > Todd Brelje, not Berlji! > > > > According to the grapevine, he was working on a later version > > which would work under NT and have an interface more like the > > later Biorad software. (For those who don't know, Todd also wrote > > the first version of COMOS, then called CM). However Bio-Rad > > refused to allow him to continue with it, for unfathomable reasons > > of their own. Since he had been given access to Bio-Rad source > > code and had signed the appropriate agreements, he had no option > > but to comply. > > > > Maybe someone else out there knows more details. > > > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Confocal Microscopy List > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dale Callaham > > Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 1:20 PM > > To: [hidden email] > > Subject: Re: What open-source software did you use in the past and > > would like to use again? > > > > Confocal Assistant was very nice for Biorad files in particular > > and the things we tended to do with those images and stacks. But > > in addition to the 8+3 filename limitation it seemed to also have > > a restricted space allocated for the full path and filename string > > and if files were more than a few directories deep with typical > > names it seemed to fail to open the files - would show them in the > > browser but couldn't open; if the files were simply moved closer > > to the root level, it opened them fine. > > > > Dale > > > > Tina Carvalho wrote: > > > Hey, that was what I was going to say! Confocal Assistant. > > Really > > > liked it. Hated the short file names. > > > > > > Aloha, > > > Tina > > > > > >> Confocal Assistant by Todd Berlji would fall into this > > category. It > > >> was developed for Win 3.1, had a nice GUI and was very popular. > > It > > >> will run uder XP but only supports short file names. You can > > download a copy at: > > >> http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Links.html > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Stephen Cody > > >> > > >> 2009/4/23 Cory Quammen <[hidden email]> > > >> > > >>> Dear list, > > >>> > > >>> Open-source and freely available software such as ImageJ, the > > Open > > >>> Microscopy Environment, and Micro-Manager are examples of > > popular, > > >>> actively-developed, and well-supported applications used > > within the > > >>> microscopy community. Presumably other popular software tools > > useful > > >>> in microscopy and image analysis have been created in the > > past, but > > >>> are no longer developed or supported because the original > > >>> development team lacks funding or interest. My question for > > the list is: > > >>> > > >>> What abandoned or neglected microscopy and image > > analysis/processing > > >>> software have you used in the past and would love to use again > > if it > > >>> were under active development, but currently do not use > > because it > > >>> either does not run or does not do something you want it to? > > By > > >>> active development, I mean that a team of developers would > > release > > >>> updated versions of the software from time to time with new > > features > > >>> and bug fixes. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your feedback, > > >>> Cory > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Cory Quammen > > >>> Center for Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and > > >>> Manipulation > > >>> (CISMM) > > >>> Department of Computer Science > > >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > >>> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cquammen > > >>> > > > > > > > > > ****************************************************************************> > * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * > > > * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 > > * > > > * University of Hawaii at Manoa * > > http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* > > > > > > **********************************************************************> > ****** > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: > > 22/04/2009 5:25 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: > > 22/04/2009 5:25 PM > > > > > |
|
|
Cameron Nowell |
Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging
|
|
Howdy List,
Has anyone out there had any experience with imaging multiple fluorescent constructs in the one sample using two photon microscopy? I have a user that already has a zebrafish with GFP and DsRed in it and would like to add a third fluorophore if possible. Does anyone know if this is possible to image, or have any ideas on a good choice for the third fluorophore? A blue protein like CFP would be ideal as its 2PE is ~800nm, leaving GFP at 920nm and DsRed at ~980nm. But my experience in the past with CFP under single photon and widefiled fluorescence has been that it is quite dim. Has anyone used CFP under 2PE before? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Cam Cameron J. Nowell Microscopy Manager Centre for Advanced Microscopy Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital Victoria, 3050 AUSTRALIA Office: +61 3 9341 3155 Mobile: +61422882700 Fax: +61 3 9341 3104 Facility Website This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waiver any rights if you have received this communication in error. The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd. |
|
|
Paul Herzmark |
Re: Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging
|
|
We do 2P microscopy with samples containing CFP, GFP,YFP and TD tomato. Excitation wavelength is around 910-920 nm. You can sort of separate the emission channels with dichroics like 495, 515 and 560.
You might also try these bandpass filters 525/30 and 645/75 as necessary to minimize crossover.
Specialist [hidden email] Department of Molecular and Cell Biology 479 Life Science Addition University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3200 (510) 643-9603 (510) 643-9500 fax On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Cameron Nowell <[hidden email]> wrote: Howdy List, |
|
|
Adrian Smith-6 |
Re: Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging
|
|
In reply to this post by Cameron Nowell
Hi Cameron,
I know of several publications with CFP under MPE. For example Paulus Mrass who just moved here from the US is using it - search PubMed for Paulus Mrass and Wolfgang Weninger. Can't comment on how bright it is compared to other alternatives. Regards, Adrian Smith Centenary Institute, Sydney, Australia
On 24/04/2009, at 9:20 AM, Cameron Nowell wrote:
|
|
|
Shivaprasad Bhuvanendran |
Re: Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging
|
|
In reply to this post by Cameron Nowell
Hi Cameron,
We have used ECFP, EGFP, EYFP and DsRed at the same time for intravital multiphoton imaging of Lymph nodes using the Olympus Fluoview 1000MPE with a SpectraPhysics MaiTai laser set to 910nm. Dichroic Mirrors 505 and 570 were used along with bandpass filters 460-510, 515-560 and 570-625 for CFP, YFP and DsRed respectively. The GFP was collected in both the CFP and YFP channels and could be distinguished both by the morphology and the distinct color. If you need further details, you can look up the publication cited here or contact me offline. Science April 2009 Liu et al., pp. 392 - 397 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1170540.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1170540/DC1/1 Regards, Shiva On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Cameron Nowell <[hidden email]> wrote: Howdy List, |
|
|
Cameron Nowell |
Re: Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging
|
|
Hi Shiva,
Thanks for the references, this is exactly what i was looking for. We even have the same microscope system:) Cam ________________________________ From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Shivaprasad Bhuvanendran Sent: Sat 25/04/2009 2:42 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Multiple Fluorophores and Two Photon Imaging Hi Cameron, We have used ECFP, EGFP, EYFP and DsRed at the same time for intravital multiphoton imaging of Lymph nodes using the Olympus Fluoview 1000MPE with a SpectraPhysics MaiTai laser set to 910nm. Dichroic Mirrors 505 and 570 were used along with bandpass filters 460-510, 515-560 and 570-625 for CFP, YFP and DsRed respectively. The GFP was collected in both the CFP and YFP channels and could be distinguished both by the morphology and the distinct color. If you need further details, you can look up the publication cited here or contact me offline. Science April 2009 Liu et al., pp. 392 - 397 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1170540.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1170540/DC1/1 Regards, Shiva Shivaprasad Bhuvanendran Research Support Specialist Bio-Imaging Resource Center The Rockefeller University 1230 York Avenue Box 209 (DWB 201) New York NY 10065 tel +1 212 327 7487 fax +1 212 327 7489 On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Cameron Nowell <[hidden email]> wrote: Howdy List, Has anyone out there had any experience with imaging multiple fluorescent constructs in the one sample using two photon microscopy? I have a user that already has a zebrafish with GFP and DsRed in it and would like to add a third fluorophore if possible. Does anyone know if this is possible to image, or have any ideas on a good choice for the third fluorophore? A blue protein like CFP would be ideal as its 2PE is ~800nm, leaving GFP at 920nm and DsRed at ~980nm. But my experience in the past with CFP under single photon and widefiled fluorescence has been that it is quite dim. Has anyone used CFP under 2PE before? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Cam Cameron J. Nowell Microscopy Manager Centre for Advanced Microscopy Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital Victoria, 3050 AUSTRALIA Office: +61 3 9341 3155 Mobile: +61422882700 Fax: +61 3 9341 3104 Facility Website This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd does not waiver any rights if you have received this communication in error. The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd. |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |