The spining disk is limited to
one pinhole size but the 2D array scanning Infinity3 has sever
different pinholes. We have the Infinity3 and find the choice of
pinholes is very important. For some samples, thinner optical
sections (with smaller pinholes) is important and for some samples
more intensity (with larger pinholes) is important. Don't forget
the camera, I would recommend the most sensitive you can get. Most
samples have too few photons! The Hamamatsu backthinned C9100-13
works well for us.
Subject: Re: Spinning disk requirement ... consider
alternative array scan confocal
> Hi Charu,
>
>
Check out VT-Infinity and VT-Hawk at Visitech
>
http://www.visitech.co.uk/site/products.php The VT-Hawk adds
>
FRAP/photoactivation capability to the Infinity. Visitech sold
>
Yokogawa's for a long time - Steve Coleman told me in April 2009
> that
> their company was selling off its remaining
spinning disk
> inventory
> to focus exclusively on their
array scanners. A VT with the
> right
> EMCCD would be a
great combination. My biggest concern with
> Visitech
> is
how do they support overseas: they are a British company, so
> I
am
> referring to both here (USA) and you.
>
> As
for Calcium ion flux, the "standard of care" is Fura-2 for
> its
> dynamic range. However, the excitation light path of most
> fluorescence microscopes are such that UV is usually not
> parfocal
> with visible. Until recently, even violet
(405 nm) was not
> parfocal
> with green and red (and now
only a few expensive objective
> lenses
> are).
Parfocality is not critical in widefield Fura-2, but would
> be
> for confocal. The dynamic range of fluorescent protein based
> biosensors is not anywhere near Fura-2, but are getting better,
> for
> example, GCaMP-3, and can be targeted to specific
location(s) by
> appropriate targeting sequences.
>
> CARV II - I manage a BD pathway 855 that has a CARV (I?)
inside.
> Nice
> to be able to see confocal by eye, but
the BD (formerly ATTO)
> software is bad. If you buy a CARV II,
be sure to evaluate the
> software that you will be using with
it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George
>
>
At 02:36 AM 12/30/2009, you wrote:
> >Dear All
>
>
> >I request all the members to please help me to decide
for a
> spinning disk
> >confocal microscope for our
facility which is a multiuser
> facility for the
>
>whole university. We already have a point scanning confocal
>
system from
> >Olympus. We will have another point scanning
confocal soon with
> all the live
> >cell imaging
accessories (laser based).
> >For very fast phenomenon like
measuring Calcium Flux in the
> cells, we want
> >to
have a multi point scanning system. But i am unable to
> decide
whether i
> >should take a fluorescence based spinning disk or
laser based
> spinning disk
> >confocal.
>
>Also, please give me some feedback for CARV II (multi point
confocal,
> >fluorescence based).
> >Please
help.
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >Charu
Tanwar
> >Imaging Specialist
> >Advanced
Instrumentation Research Facility
> >Jawaharlal Nehru
University
> >New Delhi
> >India.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George McNamara,
Ph.D.
> Image Core Manager
> Analytical Imaging Core
Facility
> University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine
>
Miami, FL 33136
>
[hidden email]>
[hidden email]> 305-243-8436 office
>
http://www.sylvester.org/AICF (Analytical Imaging Core Facility)
>
http://www.sylvester.org/AICF/pubspectra.zip (the entire 2000+
>
spectra .xlsx file is in the zip file)
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara
>
>
> --
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 980990647) is spam:
>
Spam:
>
https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=sNot
> spam:
https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=n
>
Forget vote:
>
https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=f----
>
--------------------------------------------------
>
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
Richard W. Burry, Ph.D.